Jump to content

Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Is the link to the Global Museum of Communism site needed in the External Links section of this article? Discussion is here. 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the matter has been settled. Alæxis¿question? 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Pantherskin

I see that so far no argument based on policy has been forthcoming that explains why a partisan webpage about the terrors of communism is related to an article about the occupation of the Baltic States. As said above it violates WP:ELNO, #13 and possibly also #1. Another problem is that most links here seem to be rather partisan, and all partisan sources seem to promote just one point of view. So a further cleanup seems to be necessary, in particular also considering that most weblinks point to webpages that are hardly authoritative and comprehensive. Pantherskin (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the time when "the terrors of communism is directly- related to an article about the occupation of the Baltic States" and there is no clear violation of WP:ELNO like claimed, I personally don't see any good reasons to have 'external links' attached to wikipedia articles in general. Secondary published sources should do the talking, not some weblinks.--Termer (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There are millions of texts about "terrors of Communism". How they contribute to understanding the topic of the current article? By this logic we may also include all links about Red Army, all books about Joseph Stalin. Both Stalin and Red Army are more than "Directly related", they are "immediately involved". However the added links must contribute to the immediate article topic, otherwise they will create an impenetrable clutter to the reader who wants to learn more about the Occupation of the Baltic States, rather than about all possible "terrors of communism". - Altenmann >t 18:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I fail to see why a dim view of documented acts against humanity by communist regimes is "partisan" (meaning, defense of communist regimes is NPOV).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

International community, again

I invite users Martintg and Erikupoeg who reverted ([1][2]) the passage about international recognition to its old version to explain their edits in this section where this problem has been discussed recently and where new version has been agreed on. Alæxis¿question? 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the issue is with removing "Most...", which is reputably available in multiple sources and supported per the earlier discussion, including your own comment. Please do not change from "Most".  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The cited source simply says "Most...", not "Some...". --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, no problem with that, of course. Sorry, I was under impression that the old version was restored again... Alæxis¿question? 21:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Whew, done with that, I found it a bit confusing.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alexis, the section Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#International_community was referring to this passage in the lead, which you removed here, which btw I agree with. I inserted the sourced text not back into the lead, but in an entirely different place in the section "Baltic diplomatic missions 1940–1991"[3], where it is natural to have more detailed information, including the fact that Nazi Germany recognised the Soviet annexation. I see no reason why mention of recognition by Nazi Germany should be removed, I'll reword it and reinsert it as a separate paragraph. In fact, depending upon how much information I can find, Nazi Germany's recognition of the Soviet annexation may even warrant a separate sub-section. --Martintg (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The recognition by Nazi Germany is notable, how do you propose to mention it? Alæxis¿question? 21:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking up the literature at the moment, depending on what I find will determine whether it is a line or paragraph or sub-section in the section "Baltic diplomatic missions 1940–1991". It would be interesting to find out what happened to the Baltic diplomatic missions in Germany in 1940, were they closed down, handed over to the Soviet Union or something else. --Martintg (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Current recognition of the continuity of Baltic states

According this source [4] at least Russia, Albania, Bulgaria, Cuba, China, Egypt, India, Sweden and Japan currently do not recognize the Baltic states to be successors of the pre-war republics. Austria recently changed its position but initially also did not recognize the continuity.--Dojarca (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be an interesting fact in case the link you provided would mention anything about the thing you say it does. Perhaps you made a mistake with the page number? Please provide the correct page number with a citation and the facts can be added to the article in case its relevant to the subject.--Termer (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Page 137.--Dojarca (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Dojarca, you are not quite representing the source correctly. It's not "not recognizing", for a number of them it's simply not saying either way... "have not formally stated whether or not they consider the Baltic states to be successors of the pre-war republics." We know the Russian position, of course.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Vecrumba, seems you even did not look at the article. You can also read this [5] article by the same author. He clearly separates all countries into three groups: recognizing the continuity, not recognizing the continuity and those who had no pre-war relations with the Baltic states. For a country which had diplomatic relations with the Baltic states it is virtually impossible to have no position on the issue: they should either renew or start anew the diplomatic relations. In the same article he also says that the United Nations and International Labour Organization do not recognize the continuity and consider the states to be separated from the USSR. European Parliament and Council of Europe on the other hand, recognize the continuity.--Dojarca (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The only fact on page 137 is that Russia is not recognizing the continuity. On Albania, Bulgaria, Cuba and China the author says "it seems" -> and regarding Egypt, India and Japan it says: "do not refer to continuity in their declaration of recognition". How this turned into "all those do not recognize the Baltic states to be successors of the pre-war republics" in Dojarca's eyes, I have no idea.--Termer (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. however the chapter on page 36 starts with a clear statement: "The majority of states are in accordance with the position of the Baltic states relating to their international status". meaning again, nothing new in the context. So what is the purpose of this discussion?--Termer (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Occupation" or "Liberation" 1944

So, now we are back - again - in basic questions. Was the 1944 Soviet invasion "occupation" or "liberation"? I do not see any ground for a term "liberation", as both Nazi German and the USSR invasions were against a will of the Baltic states. Modern Russia has a concept of the historical event, which has more "religious" than academic aspect. However, we can discuss the occupation and annex 1944-1990. In my opinion, there are two phases: re-occupation and annex. Peltimikko (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For sources, you can see the google search against this search. (Igny (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
What is the purpose of Russian Google search? It is well known that Soviet and current pro-Kremlin historians are/were forced to treat occupation of Baltics as "liberation". Claiming that "according to some scholars, reoccupied" has no basis; among Western historians, my estimate is that "liberation" has about as much supporters as Holocaust denial.
In the article, Soviet and pro-Kremlin position is well represented in its own section. Please do not push fringe viewpoint to the rest of the article.
--Sander Säde 13:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I really do not think that the official POV of a party who did the deed was a fringe theory. You have to get your facts straight. I think we have to neutrally explore the evolution of the international view on this event with focus on publications before 1990s, how the view changed during the Cold War and what happened after 1990s. There is no dispute however that at that moment no one in Western countries considered that as reoccupation, with an obvious exception of Nazi Germany, of course. (Igny (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
(ec)"Facts straight"? Let's use Google Scholar - much better measure then a Russian web search - to look for "Soviet occupation" Baltics for articles published since 2000: [6]. 1840 matches (much more if you use country names instead of general Baltics). "Soviet liberation" Baltics [7] gives a grand total of 40 matches - and at least some of them are in the style "the ideology of Soviet liberation was instilled in the occupied countries as well" or use quotation marks for "liberation" (ie. so-called "liberation"). Even including those, ratio of 1/46... how is "liberation" not a fringe view? --Sander Säde 13:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This mostly refers to events of 1940, not 1944.--Dojarca (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Including the year number reduces the matches to about 1000 - however, losing a lot of relevant matches (sources discussing 50 years of occupation etc etc). In any case, the situation is clear: next to no one among English-published scientists considers 1944 to be a liberation, also after year 2000. Soviet and Russian viewpoints are presented in the article already. I am sure it is possible find couple of articles in English press discussing the 1944 event as a liberation - but, again, you can find Holocaust denialist articles as well, but that doesn't mean it is not (thankfully) a fringe viewpoint. --Sander Säde 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In the source provided in article, the term "reoccupied" used only once in passing. Many if not most of the hundreds sources from your search refer to "Soviet occupation" of Baltic in 1940 ( I do not argue with that here) and refer to 1944 Soviet advances as "triumphant return" or something. This search, which eliminates reference to occupation of Baltic in 1940, shows use of the term "reoccupation" with reference to 1944 Soviet advance, with a count of mere 33 results (please note of how many of the authors are actually from Western countries, and how many articles were published before 1990). I do not understand how comparison to 54 results in this search led to a conclusion that liberation is fringe and reoccupation is not.(Igny (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

(ec) This is simple - "reoccupation" is a very rarely used word. Even dictionary.com gives "occupation" as a result when you search for "reoccupation"; Merriam-Webster doesn't recognize the word at all. Therefore, searching for "reoccupation" in scholarly sources is very unlikely to bring up much results. When looking at the matches without "re",it is clear that the majority articles deal with either 1944 events or 50-year Soviet occupation - or see no difference between first or second Soviet occupation (in case of Estonia, remember that independence was declared again after Nazis left and before Soviets arrived). I do agree that it shouldn't be used in the article - "occupation" without "re" is a better term. --Sander Säde 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My point was that you haven't demonstrated that the majority articles see no difference between first or second Soviet occupation. At the same time I have demonstrated that "reoccupation" is not valid term to describe the 1944 events. (Igny (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
And I have demonstrated that "liberation" is not a valid term to describe the 1944 events. So, "occupation" without "re" should be acceptable for all? --Sander Säde 16:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I am as against applying term occupation to 1944 Soviet advance simply because you would not find a statement "soviets occupied baltics in 1944", you could only find a statement "soviets occupied baltics in 1940", and you are wrong that there were no difference. And it is not valid to discard sources in Russian, and claim that Baltic nationalistic view (see the sources for reoccupation) with regard to 1944 events prevails in Western sources only because "occupation of Baltic" in 1940 is prevalent there. (Igny (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
Anyway, 're-occupation' phrasing is definitely not appropriate because it implyes the republice were not part of the USSR after the war which is a minotiti revisionist point of view. Any encyclopedy would say the republics were restored as part of the USSR after the war.
For example, even this clearly anti-Soviet source (Memorial society) admits that the majority of the world perceive the republics to be liberated in 1944 from the Nazis:How should one view the events of 1944 when the Soviet Army drove the Germans out of Lithuania, Estonia and most of Latvia? As the liberation of the Baltic State from the Nazis? As an important step towards the final victory over Nazism? Undoubtedly, and this is precisely how the events are perceived in the world. In Russia the perception is especially strong, with it forming part of the basis of national self-awareness.[8]--Dojarca (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like both "occupation" and "liberation" are POV-loaded words. Just a suggestion, how about: In 1944 the Soviet Union gained control of the Baltic states? That wording should be neutral to both parties, since it does not imply whether someone was occupied or liberated with or without concent. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 18:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Occupation" or "Liberation" 1944, I don't see any contradiction really, first the countries were liberated from the German occupation, then occupied by Soviet Union for the next 50 years, and "gained control" works fine too.--Termer (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do you refuse to place credit where it is due? Yes they were liberated. And Soviet Union was who liberated them. Yes, Soviet Union regained control of the Baltic. And yes, Baltic nationalists considered that part of their history Soviet occupation. I am going to fix the article accordingly. (Igny (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
¡No pasarán!. The whole Western world considered Baltics to be occupied by the Soviet Union, not "Baltic nationalists", see the archives of this page. Only Soviet and now pro-Kremlin historiography claims Baltics joined Soviet Union voluntarily. Doesn't the fact that you had to use a Soviet source from the height of the Cold War to cite "liberated" say enough about that view?!
We've been through this way too many times. I can already predict how this will go... same as half a dozen times before. Pro-Kremlin group demands sources. Others provide a multitude (literally dozens) sources from scientific monographies or journals. Pro-Kremlin tries to discredit the sources (I remember one... not the smartest kid in the class, trying to claim an international science journal published in Scandinavia is a "Baltic nationalist mouthpiece") or claim that there is a huge conspiracy against Russia, including "well known anti-Russian media outlets like BBC, The Economist, CNN, Time, <insert name here>". Pro-Kremlin people are asked sources. They are not able to come up with anything better than some news sites and the eXile - or Soviet propaganda. Why do we have to do this again? Why must a fringe viewpoint to be presented as the majority viewpoint? It is the same as writing Evolution article from a creationist viewpoint (and yes, you can see the result here).
--Sander Säde 15:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not have to see archives, I participated in these discussions myself and your arguments were not convincing enough for me. (Igny (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
And this is not an argument about what happened in 1940, but what happened in 1944-45. Some sources (mostly Baltic authors) called it reoccupation, some sources called this liberation (there is even a medal for that). Your claim about most Western sources is just your unsubstantiated POV. (Igny (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
Yes, I think "gained control" is a good middle road. --Sander Säde 08:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
yeah right this "Baltic nationalists" again.
I hear Russian nationalists like to take pride in anything related to WWII, as this was the last war that was victorious for Russia, after that it's been downhill, including loosing the cold war. So I kind of feel sorry for the guys, let them mention in the article that Soviet Union also liberated the Baltic states from the German occupation.--Termer (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, just as the Russians take pride in their victory in WW2, Baltic nationalists can't stop whining about how they got abused in the process. Can't you just get over it and stop feeling sorry for yourselves? (Igny (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

With regard to this edit

  • you deleted this source, and proceeded to add {cn} in the lead
  • retake is as npov as it can be, no need for other synonyms, like reconquest
  • in the Russian source Soviets liberated Baltic, where no "quotes" for liberate were used. Adding the quotes was OR.
  • End of German occupation is as NPOV as it can be

Consequently, I summarily undid this edit. (Igny (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

"stop feeling sorry for yourselves"? would you please clarify yourself, who exactly do you think feels sorry for him/herself here? I can't speak for "Baltic nationalists" but looking at the people from the Baltic countries, they should be pretty happy about the fact the evil empire collapsed and they got rid of the occupiers who liberated them from independence. And please keep the Soviet/Russian chauvinist revisionism out of wikipedia! Thanks--Termer (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait, so the Balts are not sorry that they were occupied in the first place? May be they were proud they were occupied? (Igny (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
That must be more advanced topic on the subject, for example the book I've read Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture chapter on SOVIET OCCUPATION (1944-1985) doesn't cover such deep concepts like "sorry" and "proud" in the context.--Termer (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any Western source for "liberation" or not? Peltimikko (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems that no. Igny uses Soviet propaganda source from the height of the Cold War. It is worthless as a source for anything, not to mention, the topic under discussion.
Let's collect some more sources about occupation of 1944, shall we?
  • The Baltic question during the Cold War, by John Hiden, Vahur Made, David J. Smith. "...the grounds that 1945 had signalled the reoccupation rather than the liberation of the Baltic countries. For Russian propaganda purposes, however,..."
  • Religious freedom in the world: a global report on freedom and persecution‎. Paul A. Marshall, 2000. "...was the deportation of some two hundred thousand citizens after the second Soviet occupation of 1944.."
  • Soviet Genocide? Communist Mass Deportations in the Baltic States and International Law. Lauri Mälksoo, 2001, Leiden Journal of International Law (2001), 14 : 757-787 Cambridge University Press. "Repressive policies during the second Soviet occupation (1944–1991). After the Soviets had occupied the Baltic republics for the second time in 1944, they..."
  • The Hidden and Forbidden History of Latvia under Soviet and Nazi Occupations 1940-1991: Selected Research of the Commission of the Historians of Latvia. Hiden, John, 2007, The Slavonic and East European Review "..covering the Soviet occupation 1944–91 offer less.."
  • An outsiders support of Yiddishism in the Baltic States: The case of Paul Ariste. Verschik, Anna, Language Problems & Language Planning, Volume 27, Number 2, 2003 , pp. 115-136(22). "At the beginning of the second Soviet occupation (1944–1991) he was briefly imprisoned as an “Estonian bourgeois nationalist” but then miraculously released,..."
  • Can the Baltic States be defended? Hain Rebas, Baltic Defence Review 1/1999 "The following Soviet occupation, 1944-91, introduced and secured almost permanently in Russian minds, such classifications like ´Baltijskij Rus´, ´Nash Zapad´ and, from the Kremlin formal, administrative point of view, ´Sovietskaya Pribaltika´,..."
  • Lithuanian Catholic clergy and the KGB, A Streikus. Religion, State and Society, 2006 "After the Soviet reoccupation of Lithuania in 1944 widespread guerrilla resistance..."
  • War in the woods: Estonia's struggle for survival, 1944-1956. M Laar, T Ets, 1992. "..after the Soviet reoccupation of Estonia in the fall of 1944."
  • Lithuanian Independence and International Law: A Retrospective Examination. J.P. Terry. Naval L. Rev. 133 (1992) "...to the Soviet reoccupation forces.."
  • The Unmixing of Peoples in the Post-Communist World. Zollberg, Aristide R. Helsinki Monitor 31 (1997) "..Soviet reoccupation of the area in 1944, when Stalin sought to destroy..."
  • Civil Wars in the Soviet Union. Rieber, Alfred J. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History - Volume 4, Number 1, Winter 2003, pp. 129-162. "...in forming a "resistance" to Soviet reoccupation".
  • Narva Region within the Estonian Republic. From Autonomism to Accommodation? Region, state, and identity in Central and Eastern Europe by Judy Batt, Kataryna Wolczuk, 2002. "Following the Soviet reoccupation of 1944, these latter territories were detached from Estonia and incorporated into the neighbouring RSFSR."
  • The Encyclopedia Americana: the international reference work, Volume 10‎, page 524. Alexander Hopkins McDonnald. "On Feb. 2, 1944, Soviet troops crossed the border and took Vana- kula, thus launching the Soviet reoccupation of Estonia."
  • Naval Strategy and Operations in Narrow Seas. Milan N. Vego, 2003. "..principal factor in the Soviet reoccupation of the Baltic coast in 1944-45..."
  • Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Volume 4. Europa Publications Limited. "The Soviet reoccupation was resisted into the 1950s by small bands of..."
  • The NEBI yearbook: North European and Baltic Sea integration, Volume 2000, page 27. Lars Hedegaard, Bjarne Lindström, 1998. "After the Soviet reoccupation of these countries following the German collapse, deportations resumed. The estimated number of deportees in 1944-52 is 124000"
  • The history of the Baltic States‎. Kevin O'Connor, 2003. "World War II and Soviet reoccupation devastated Baltic cultural life, as many of the most talented Baltic writers, intellectuals, and other cultural figures..."
  • Ivan the terrible‎. Joan Neuberger, 2003. "The Soviet reoccupation of the Baltic states was to be celebrated, no matter when or how illegitimately it occurred."
It took literally just minutes to find these sources, clearly discussing 1944 events as occupation or reoccupation. For every source here, I skipped ten or more. I am eagerly awaiting how all of them are now declared "Baltic nationalist propaganda" or invalid for some other reason, as, you know, when there is a contradiction between views of Soviet Union and rest of the world, we know that the world is always wrong.
--Sander Säde 09:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear by now that there is a conflict of views between Western and Russian points, stemming from the Cold War. So giving too much weight to Western sources dating after 1950s and even more so to Baltic sources dated after 1990s violates NPOV here. Could you find a Western source, NYtimes, perhaps, dated 1945 or earlier which called this particular event reoccupation or occupation? (Igny (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
An example of a neutral observer. Some quotes by Yehuda Bauer:
The greater threat to all of humanity was Nazi Germany, and it was the Soviet Army that liberated Eastern Europe, was the central force that defeated Nazi Germany, and thus saved Europe and the world from the Nazi nightmare.” Obviously it is necessary to recall that “World War II was started by Nazi Germany, not the Soviet Union...
Obviously Baltic states were a a part of Eastern Europe, it seems that when talking about liberation of Eastern Europe, no one actually differentiated between particular parts of it back then, and sometimes even now. (Igny (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
(ec)So why are you trying to eliminate other views from the article under guise of NPOV when it is clear that those views are prevalent? Why are you asking for an old source, while we should use modern sources? We are not using views from Aristotle when discussing evolution. However, since you asked, here are some pre-1950 sources (I'll stop looking after first five, as I really do not see a reason for it):
  • Estonia in the Soviet grip: life and conditions under Soviet occupation 1947. Endel Kareda, 1949."..the situation in Estonia, as it obtains under the more recent years of the second Soviet occupation,.."
  • Literature in Estonia‎. E. Howard Harris, 1947. "In 1944 Estonia was re-occupied by Soviet troops and continues,..."
  • The Journal of Education, Volume 82, 1950. "...occupation followed in 1941 and the present Soviet occupation in the autumn of 1944.."
  • We demand freedom for Estonia: memoranda presented to the delegations at the Paris Conference, 1946. "...who have escaped the second Soviet occupation of the country..."
  • The story of Latvia: a historical survey. Arve̲ds Švābe, 1949. "The Red Army reoccupied most of the Baltic territory in 1944,..."
I must note that you still haven't come up with modern sources (preferably in current lingua franca, English) which describe Soviet actions after driving Nazis away as not occupation.
--Sander Säde 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not trying to eliminate anything. This view is still prevalent here most notably in the title. I just give more weight to the other POV which was largely downplayed to the status of fringe theory before my edits. For example, in contrast to your partners here, I do not demand to place your western sources in its own section and eliminate it from lede or the title completely. (Igny (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
With regard to relevant source in English, here we go [9]. (Igny (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
A quote from here
The view that Latvia was “occupied” by the Soviet Union,whereas in fact it was annexed by it, has had various consequences,from the creation of “museums of occupation” in the Baltic capitals to a strict citizenship policy which denies citizenship to large numbers of Russian-speakers.
Note the use of "quotes" here. (Igny (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
Another rather interesting quote from here
In their bid to condemn these nationalists and their murder of Jews, some Jewish groups are trying to promote the image of Stalin’s Red Army as liberator, not occupier, of Eastern Europe. It’s a hard sell in countries such as Ukraine and Moldova and in the Baltic states, where many say glorification of the nationalists is on the rise.
I do not think it is really hard to find English sources on this subject if you really tried. Unfortunately in your efforts to push a particular POV, you just try to ignore any contradictions of your position. (Igny (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
Another source, which does not simply throw POV labels around but rightfully raises a question on this subject. I insist that there is a lot of controversy on this subject, and labeling the events as an occupation is merely one-sided POV. (Igny (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
The quote from the idc-europe.org is not based on any shcolarly research (material? analysis?) but merely voices a Russian nationalist POV (see Natalia Narochnitskaya). The quote from jstandard.com does not present any analysis either and its use of wp:weasel words ends up saying nothing. (many say glorification of the nationalists is on the rise - who and how many people say that?). However the essay by the Independent seems reliable and should be used as a source to the fact that different views exist. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
What's about Alexander Bukh's opinion at Asia Times? Is opinion of a "PhD candidate in international relations" scholarly enough? A relevant quote:
However, few bother to mention that the history of the European phase of World War II was rewritten, and the modified Anglo-Saxon version has been permanently solidified with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
(Igny (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

And to illustrate some photos (comments in Russian) Sure does not look like Kremlin propaganda to me(Igny (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

All countries have their Otto Wille Kuusinen or Vidkun Quisling... Look how happy these people are [10]. Photos never lie, do they? Peltimikko (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, Igny, but the fact that you submit Soviet propaganda photos to illustrate your point makes it really difficult to take you seriously. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
What tells you it was a propaganda? Reaction of people seems genuine to me. (Igny (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

The events in 1944 were clearly an illegal occupation and no different from the German occupation (except that it had way less support from the population of the Baltic states). Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

David James Smith

He says about "occupation of 1940 to 1991" only in the title but in the text says the republics were re-incorporated in the USSR in 1944. He did not argue for the republics were occupied under Soviet rule, so I remove this source.--Dojarca (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

population transfers

Feel free to expand and add sources to this section. (Igny (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

lede

Do you have any suggestions what to do with the bloated lead? (Igny (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Occupied Nations Don't Look or Live Like That

SERIOUSLY. When ever did an occupied nation acting in the role of a province of the occupying country enjoy a standard of living and quality of life far *above* the average of the other provinces (Soviet Socialist Republics, to be more precise)??? Since when do occupied territories enjoy full citizen's rights, participate in the occupying nation's government, etc., etc.?? Aadieu (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, how spoiled they were... Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. According the definition of occupation a country cannot occupy its own territory. Those who defend the 'occupation theory' imply the states were never part of the USSR. So does say this article.--Dojarca (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic countries. It installed Soviet authorities preventing the legitimate authorities from functioning. The USSR was deporting citizens from the Baltics even before the countries "petitioned" to join, including most of the Baltic states' legitimate governmental authorities and elected parliamentary representatives. What is "theory" is the "theory" of non-occupation.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
How is being murdered or sent to concentration camps as slaves or denied freedom and human rights "enjoying full citizen's rights"(!!!)? Virgil Lasis (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aadieu, at the risk of violating WP:NOTFORUM, as I recall, the majority of native Balts were purged from government positions within the the Baltics and replaced by imported personnel. As far as standard of living goes, yes it is true that the Baltic countries did enjoy the highest standard of living within the SU, but that was still far below the standard of Finland for example. I've seen a study that indicates that in 1939 the standard of living in Estonia was comparable with that of Finland, which demonstrates how ruinous Soviet occupation was to the Estonian economy. --Martintg (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that no matter what happened after, the act of occupation (1939-1940) remains an occupation imho. Regarding the standards of living, I think that this info should be added to this and related articles, it shouldn't be hard to find sources for that. Alæxis¿question? 11:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the standard of living somehow a part of the definition of occupation or has got anything else to do with the article at hand? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Obviously yes, if you choose to call the 1944-1991 state an occupation. This info shows how Baltic republics were perceived by Soviet authorities. Most of the books about the subject discuss the economical situation in the Baltic countries, see for example "The Baltic States, years of dependence, 1940-1990" by Misiunas and Taagepera, pages 184,185
I propose to write something like "National income per capita was higher in Estonia/Latvia than elsewhere in the USSR (44/42% above the Soviet average in 1968)" there and there. There it's immediately relevant; then we could think what to add to this article and where. Alæxis¿question? 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
We have the articles Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic and Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic where information on the standard of living could be placed. I think it is enough that this article has links to those Xxxxx Soviet Socialist Republic articles rather than duplicate content here. --Martintg (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would normally insist on the same, but this article's scope does cover the period of time up to 1991. The fact, that it ceased to be a military occupation after the occupied territories were fully integrated into the Soviet state, is thus directly relevant here. I would suggest to change the section name from "Soviet re-occupation, 1944–1991" to "Soviet re-occupation, 1944" and then directly state that following the military reoccupation of the Baltics in 1944, their territories were reintegrated into the USSR and existed as constituent Soviet Republics until 1991, at which point they regained independence as the modern states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. --Illythr (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering mass deportations, etc. continued after said "reintegration", that deported individuals, if they managed to survive Siberia, were only allowed back to their country (but not former homes) after twenty years, etc., occupation extends for the entire period, as has been described in scholarly sources. The purpose of this article is to discuss the occupation and acts committed impacting the Baltic states and their peoples. It is not a "history of" or other general article. Again, the SSR articles are the ones for general topics regarding the Soviet era. Hope this helps.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The deportations were not a sign of any special status these territories had within the USSR - population transfers in the Soviet Union (as well as political persecutions, "dekulakization" and so on) were a general policy at the time. Indeed, this article discusses the occupation, yet it fails to demonstrate the obvious fact that the Baltics were fully integrated into the Soviet infrastructure (as every other Soviet Republic) after 1944 and were not under military occupation for the entire period of 1944-1991, as it suggests now. The elevated economic status of these SSRs is merely a visible trait that underscores this fact. --Illythr (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Lets refer to any encyclopedic source such as A geography of the U.S.S.R.(1967), [11] by California University: The baltic Republics, Belorussia, and Adjoining parts of the USSR. This part of the USSR lies west of Moscow and North of Polesye. or Information U.S.S.R.: an authoritative encyclopaedia about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the same university (1962): The Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was formed on July 21st 1940; since August 6th 1940 it has been a part of the U.S.S.R.. The international definition of occupation I already gave here: [12] but can repeat: situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory. This is according the International Red Cross.--Dojarca (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That is an interesting piece of research, and if you can find a published book that discusses this viewpoint that would be great. However until that time comes, we have to rely upon what exists today in published sources, and David Smith, one of the most eminent scholars of Baltic history today states quite clearly that the Baltics were occupied from 1940 to 1991. --Martintg (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Your source seems to imply that the World War II lasted until 1991. This is crealy not a mainstream point of view. This though may be a rhetoric hyperbola for the caption as in the text itself the author uses word 'reincorporation' rather than 'occupation': For the Estonians and their neighbours, on the other hand, 'liberation' by Soviet forces was simply the prelude to focible reincorporation into the USSR. --Dojarca (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
To Matintg: are there any sources that support your claim that the government positions were occupied by "imported personnel"?--Dojarca (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, see page 139 here. --Martintg (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh by "imported personnel" you mean ethnic Balts who lived in other parts of the USSR? Then the current president of Estonia and the former president of Latvia were also "imported". Does it mean Latvia after the breakup of the USSR fell under US occupation?--Dojarca (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jaan Pärn, I don't see how standard of living is in any way relevant here.--Staberinde (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to put economic statistics in the relevant articles regarding the SSRs. Those are not relevant to this article.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The point is that if there's a section about the 1944-1991 period in this article all aspects of life (military, cultural, social, economical as well as various persecution) should be mentioned. The alternative is to write only about the military occupation of 1944 and the events that immediately followed it. Alæxis¿question? 11:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this section from the talk page shortly. This is not a forum or a discussion board about the subject but is meant for discussing improvements to the article. Thanks for understanding.--Termer (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. for the future, anybody wishing to improve the article: What is the source you're referring to, who has published it and what does it say about the subject and the facts and opinions from it can be added to the article. Regarding the standard of living in the Baltic states, how it went down during the Soviet occupation, all relevant facts should go into relevant article Sovietization of the Baltic states. Thanks again!--Termer (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Termer's statement as a simple reiteration of wp:source and wp:forum which for some reason gets forgotten on this talk page every once in a while. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This section is about improving the article by adding info about the economical situation in Baltic states during the Soviet rule and this issue is not yet solved. Alæxis¿question? 11:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Why stop at economical situation? Why not add also info on which kind of pets people had, what they ate for breakfast in the occupied Baltics and more fun but, from the article's perspective, irrelevant stuff? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The article implies that the situation of 1944 extended all the way up to 1991 without noting that the republics were fully incorporated into USSR. Details should indeed go into the individual articles, but the general status change should be clearly stated here. Also, since the Forest brothers are mentioned here, it should be added that they ceased to exist as a cohesive movement by 1952 (same problem). --Illythr (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"the republics were fully incorporated into USSR" according to whom? The facts according to the sources speak exact opposite. The soviet Union didn't see most of the money that the Baltic states had in banks abroad, the baltic ships that the soviets didn't capture were never turned over to Soviets. The accredited Baltic diplomatic missions continiued to function,etc. so where and according to whom is this "the republics were fully incorporated into USSR"? Again, please stop posting personal opinions to this talk page but refer to secondary published sources instead while making suggestions. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Baltic SSR's (see the source presented by Dojarca above, for example). As for the Forest brothers - that much is already stated in the article about them, no futher sourcing is necessary. --Illythr (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about the Baltic SSR's? I do not understand how this is relevant? The Baltic SSR's were administrative units of the Soviet Union formed on the occupied territories of the Baltic states. The Baltic states however had their accredited diplomatic missions open, funds in the Bank for International Settlements etc. and other assets like ships in the international waters etc. This article is not about "occupation of the Baltic SSR's" that were sc.constituent republics of the Soviet Union but about the occupation of the Baltic states that were founded in the aftermath of WWI, OK.--Termer (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Baltic SSR's were administrative units of the Soviet Union formed on the occupied territories of the Baltic states. - that's what this article should state. --Illythr (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That formulation sounds okay with me. --Martintg (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, certain bank accounts were not incorporated, I agree. But their territories were incorporated. So they were not occupied. And puppet emigrant governments in the United States were successors of the pre-war Baltic states only in the view of a limited number of countries. Other countries considered the Soviet republics to be the successors. --Dojarca (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "But their territories were incorporated. So they were not occupied. And puppet emigrant governments in the United States were successors of the pre-war Baltic states only..." — The content of this quote is oxymoronic, since why should there exist socalled "puppet emigrant governments" in exile if the territory were incorporated, not occupied? The word incorporation makes it sound like it was done willingly, as a bilateral agreement of some sort — even though it is known that (revolutionary) communism does not take no for an answer. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, for me incorporation sounds just as it is: incorporation. Willingly or not willingly or semi-willingly etc. For example, Martintg's source seys they were reincorporated unwillingly.--Dojarca (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting viewpoint, all that remains to be done is to find some reliable secondary sources to support it. You can list the author, book or academic paper title and page number here so that we can evaluate it. --Martintg (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, until no solid sources are given to explain what exactly Dojarca is talking about other than Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Position_of_the_Russian_Federation which is part of the article already, this discussion doesn't go anywhere but into WP:FORUM. And who exactly considered and who didn't consider the "Soviet republics to be the successors" is also part of the article already : Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Recognition_and_non-recognition_of_annexation_and_occupation. So in case Dojarca you do have anything new to suggest, please do not hesitate. until then there is no point to return to things that are well spelled out in the article and talked through at the talk page.--Termer (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Martintg, I've already gave you numerous sources that the republics were part of the USSR or were incorporated in the USSR. If this is not enough for you, I can add some more.--Dojarca (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Also, please keep the facts straight, for example "certain bank accounts were not incorporated" - Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is an international organization of central banks. Its not just a "certain bank account" but assets belonging to the state institutions Cental Bank of Estonia, National Bank of Latvia and Bank of Lithuania.--Termer (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)--Termer (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "puppet emigrant governments in the United States", there has been no "emigrant governments in the United States" (puppet or not) at least from the Baltic states in any time in history.--Termer (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberation versus occupation

After liberation of Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany by Soviet Union in 1944-45, Soviet domination and control over Eastern European countries in general, and incorporation of Baltic countries into USSR, in particular, were considered by many in Western world and by nationalists in annexed republics as an occupation. My questions are as follows. Do opinions in the Western literature justify diminishing the act of liberation from Nazi Germany to a mere fringe theory or propaganda, the way it is currently treated in this article? There is an obvious conflict of views between Russian and Western POVs stemming from the Cold War, with Anglo-Saxon view firmly solidified in Western literature after collapse of the USSR. However, wouldn't downplaying official Russian POV amount to violation of NPOV? (Igny (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

No, neither the Western nor Russian POV are NPOV. Only scientific analyses can be used as a source for a NPOV and there are none concluding that the Baltics were liberated by the Red Army. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There are more than twenty sources in the talk page ranging from pre-1950 to modern scientific journals. All of them discuss the event as a second occupation or reoccupation. Igny's original source for "liberation" was Soviet magazine from 1984, the height of the Cold War. So far he has not been able to provide any peer-reviewed sources supporting his view and has turned down compromise ("gained control"). Soviet viewpoint is already present in the article - there is a section Soviet sources prior to Perestroika which discusses the topic in-detail. --Sander Säde 14:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Liberation" is a Soviet-myth, which has no academic background. This is a not about west vs. russia - rather science vs. science fiction. Peltimikko (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Please note that I seek comments of uninvolved editors before addressing counter-arguments. However, I would like to point out that while my opponents here are happy with status quo, I am trying to improve the article by bringing it closer to NPOV. (Igny (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
  • That the Baltic republics were liberated from the Nazis is the majority point of view in the world How should one view the events of 1944 when the Soviet Army drove the Germans out of Lithuania, Estonia and most of Latvia? As the liberation of the Baltic State from the Nazis? As an important step towards the final victory over Nazism? Undoubtedly, and this is precisely how the events are perceived in the world. In Russia the perception is especially strong, with it forming part of the basis of national self-awareness.[13]. On the other hand, theory that the states were 're-occupied' contradicts the majority of encyclopedic sources which state that the republics were restored as part of the USSR after the war (Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia[14], Hutchinson encyclopedia, Blackwell Reference, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Britannica)--Dojarca (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Dojarca, you are trolling. It has been explained to you in numerous occasions that the Baltics were incorporated into the Soviet Union de facto, not de jure. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
They were incorporated. Period. Some countries (and the United Nations) recognized it de-jure and some only de-facto.--Dojarca (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the Baltic states were occupied by the USSR in 1940 and "the republics were restored as part of the USSR after the war" - it is quite logical that occupation was restored, hence the title of this article. As suggested elsewhere on this page, the wording "gained control" is a neutral way of describing what occured after the liberation from Nazism. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
No. Occupation(if existed) ended in 1940 after the republics were incorporatied in the USSR. This is the point of view of Russia, UN and any countries that recognized territorial integrity of the USSR.--Dojarca (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate if owners of this article stopped interrupting my work in progress. That is, of course, if you want a better article, and not a pile of nationalistic POV. (Igny (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
I think, if you want avoid "a pile of nationalistic POV", then you should stop inserting a particular nationalistic POV and follow the NPOV yourself instead. --Sander Säde 07:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A comment from an uninvolved third party: The Stalinist Soviet conquest of the Baltic states was not a "liberation", that's only a POV held by supporters of Stalin's genocidal regime. The fact that one occupying power was replaced by a different occupying power didn't mean the countries were "liberated". Besides, most of the population of those countries actually preferred the Germans over the Russians and viewed the Germans as the liberators. I don't see any "downplaying" of the outrageous Stalinist POV, but obviously, the article should primarily rely on mainstream views supported by English language literature. The "official POV" of an authoritarian and underdeveloped state like Russia that has yet to come to terms with its history, that contradicts the views of all serious scholars and most of the world, is less relevant. I vehemently oppose treating Stalin's POV as equally valid as the mainstream views of serious scholars. That would mean official Nazi views also had to be treated as equally valid in all relevant articles. Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two aspects to the word "liberation" - the physical liberation from Nazism, the Nazis did not just dissolve into thin air by themselves - and the Soviet propaganda of Balts being ever grateful of being "liberated". Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, in that sense, the German invasion would also be a liberation (from the Soviets and the initial occupation). Is the German invasion also described as "Germany liberated the Baltic countries etc."? I don't think so. It's not neutral or scholarly language. Liberation in English means that you become free. But the Baltic countries weren't freed in any way, only the occupying power was replaced by a different one and the countries remained occupied for decades. Virgil Lasis (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The German invasion was actually considered as a "liberation" by many Latvians for a brief period after the "Horrible Year" (Latvian: Baigais gads) under Soviet rule. The word "liberation" is neither neutral nor scholarly, that has been my point until now. But, it seems there is a black and white approach to the word. You are right, that liberation in English means that you become free - but, noone ever attributed a fixed duration to that notion. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with User: Peltimikko, who pointed out that "liberation" is Soviet propaganda with no academic background. The article needs to be based on scholarly sources, not Soviet propaganda and stalinist historical revisionism. Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I think I am done at the moment with improving this article, notwithstanding Virgil Lasis' vandalism. Please note that we have successfully found a middle ground between calling events in 1944-45 as liberation from Nazis (Soviet POV) and Soviet occupation (western POV): both can coexist in the same article if nationalistic feelings of certain editors are put aside. I am still watching this article of course, and looking for sources to improve it further. Thank you for attention. (Igny (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
Coming in late... Calling it "liberation" IMO is valid, unless you think control by Nazis was a good thing. That the Sovs were little better doesn't change that. It's a narrow technical usage IMO, rather than a broader cultural one comparable to "women's liberation movement", say. Nor is it IMO a matter of Sov/Western POV, tho I can see why Igny says so. The subsequent Sov not leaving makes it occupation, IMO, but the initial act was liberation. (Have I succeeded in having it both ways? ;p) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Extremist POV pushing, describing Soviet occupation as "liberation"

The extremist POV pushing of User:Igny, including the attempt to describe the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states as a "liberation", supported only by a politically extreme, Soviet source, is unacceptable.[15] The very destructive POV pushing of User:Igny, that damages the neutrality of the article, needs to be stopped. Having an article that describes Soviet crimes/occupation as a "liberation" damages the credibility of Wikipedia. Virgil Lasis (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone would pay attention to unfounded accusations of a vandal, especially if you are likely to be a sockpuppet of someone who was blocked for nationalistic POV pushing. (Igny (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
Stop being ridiculous. Your extreme POV pushing speaks for itself. Your nationalistic POV pushing has already been pointed out by other users on this talk page. As for vandalism, your edits are the only edits I've seen to this article (and some others) that can be characterized as such. Virgil Lasis (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That the baltic republics were liberated in 1944 is the primary point of view in the world[16]. This article presents a minority POV as the only truth.--Dojarca (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You are definitely mistaken. The predominant view of most of the world, as well as the official view of the Baltic states (as demonstrated by many of the article's sources), is that the Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet Union in 1939, briefly interrupted by a German occupation, and then from 1944 remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the fall of communism. The predominant view is that the Baltic peoples were subject to totalitarian Russian oppression, a criminal occupation regime and genocidal policies, and denied their human rights for decades. Only Russian historical revisionists claim that the Baltic countries were not occupied. The article should be based on mainstream science and the official view of the countries in question, not Russian science fiction and historical revisionism and/or genocidal irredentism, i.e. fringe theories with no academic credibility.
Russia is an underdeveloped and authoritarian country with a very weak academic tradition in the field of history (and many other fields), that urgently needs to come to terms with its history instead of praising criminals and mass murderers like Stalin. Outrageous views of the current authoritarian Russian government should be treated by Wikipedia like we treat North Korean or Iranian views that differ from the views held by the rest of the world. Of course we can mention the negationist view held by the Russian government, but it should not be given undue prominence or presented as the truth. It's an established fact within the academic discipline of history that the claim that the Baltic countries were not occupied is a negationist view. Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
How should one view the events of 1944 when the Soviet Army drove the Germans out of Lithuania, Estonia and most of Latvia? As the liberation of the Baltic State from the Nazis? As an important step towards the final victory over Nazism? Undoubtedly, and this is precisely how the events are perceived in the world.[17]. Also do you know what occupation is? I can tell you. situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory. This is the definition by International Red Cross. No country can occupy their own territory.--Dojarca (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The Baltic countries were not Russian or Soviet territory. They were independent states, recognized by most democratic states, that were occupied from 1939 to 1991 by the Soviet Union, Germany and the Soviet Union again. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
They were Soviet territory. You can refer to any encyclopedy (Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia[18], Hutchinson encyclopedia, Blackwell Reference, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Britannica). Also neither United Nations nor any UN agency recognized them. And I am sure most countries also doid not.--Dojarca (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Finally, some debate. That is what should be expected from any serious editor instead of hastily vandalizing the article and calling to your brothers in arms at the talk page.
You are definitely mistaken. The currently predominant Anglo-Saxon view now is indeed that Allies liberated Western Europe while SU occupied the Eastern Europe. At the turning point of the Nazi invasion, there was an agreement at the Yalta conference which shaped the post-war Europe. No one raised the issue of Soviet occupation back then. But later, at the peak of the Cold War there was a reassessment of what SU did in the war. Suddenly it became an occupation. You are talking about historical revisionism, and here you are right West has rewritten history in 1947-80, and Baltic nationalist revisionists happily joined the chorus in late 1980s. If I were "extremist" as you labeled me, I could have rewritten the whole article from the current official Russian POV, split the article into Occupation of Baltic by Nazis and Annexation of Baltic by Soviet Union, but I didn't. I merely increased visibility of the Russian POV which was indeed downplayed to the status of a fringe theory by the Baltic editors here. And mind you, I have done so with strong adherence to NPOV policy. Currently the article is way more balanced than it was before. (Igny (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
There is no need to increase the visibility of the Soviet POV. It's an unscholarly fringe POV much like the Flat Earth theory, it's worthless and rejected by the states in question and most democratic states. The consensus in the western world and the affected countries is that they were occupied from 1939 to 1991. The Soviet Union is a totally discredited state and its symbols are even criminalized in a number of countries including Lithuania where they are by law regarded as occupation symbols. Virgil Lasis (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Igny, could you please stop with the stupid "Baltic nationalist revisionists" meme already? It is both a lie and an insult. As it has been demonstrated for your pleasure already, historians have always considered that Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states up to 1991 - no evil "revisionism" or "reassessment" was needed. So far you still haven't come up with any scientific sources to support your fringe theories, only opinion pieces from newspapers (which by and large, actually do not support your position - next time, perhaps analyze instead of grabbing quotes?) and a page from the infamous Institute of Democracy and Cooperation (that you have to go that low is a clear indicator in itself). The evil "reassessed" position, on the other hand, is present in dozens of scientific journals, monographies and books. --Sander Säde 15:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. But you also forgot that calling official Russian POV as revisionist extremist is no less insulting. (Igny (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
(ec) Ah, where have I called your view ("official"!!!) as revisionist? I must note again a lack of arguments or sources in your reply, as usual. What you are/were doing is comparable to pushing creationist views to articles about evolution, nothing more. --Sander Säde 15:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The position held by the Putin government differs from the position of all serious scholars in Europe (excluding Russia) and the United States, and most states and international institutions. It's worthless from an academic point of view, except that it proves the Russian government and the Russian society still has some work to do in regard to the democratization of the country and coming to terms with its totalitarian past and crimes of the Soviet Union. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the stable and perfectly neutral version of the article, as it was before the Soviet nationalist POV pushing, is reinstated. As a general principle, also note that political Soviet sources in the field of history[19] are worthless in every other regard than proving what the position of the Soviet Union or some Soviet institution/group/person was - much like Nazi sources - because they lack academic credibility and are not considered scholarly, but political, sources, within history as an academic discipline. The fact that some semi-official Soviet publication described the occupation as a liberation during the Cold War doesn't prove it was a liberation, it only proves that a totalitarian state, a state where all historical research was politically motivated and unscholarly, at the time described it as a "liberation". Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted. You may forget the idea that it ever be implemented. (Igny (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
Speak for yourself. You don't own the article. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
What you call neutral stable version, I call a completely not neutral version in a frozen state of conflicts waiting to happen. By marginally increasing visibility of an opposite POV, I've reduced the chance of future edit wars. If you call for the return for POV version of the article, I would insist on rewriting the article to reflect Soviet/ Russian POV. Why don't you see that the current version is a compromise between two extreme POVs is beyond me.(Igny (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
A "compromise" between the Flat Earth theory and the mainstream theory in the article on Earth would be a bad solution, because it gives a discredited theory undue prominence. The article should also be compared to articles covering policies of Nazi Germany, which are not written as a "compromise" between the official Nazi POV and the POV of most other states. When the Nazi POV is dealt with, it's presented as the Nazi POV. Similarly, this article should of course describe the Soviet POV, but only as the Soviet POV, not as the truth. The Soviet POV needs to be given less prominence than the mainstream view of scholars and official view of most democratic states including all the affected states and international organisations and courts of law (the countries were occupied), and it needs to be dealt with in a critical way, as a politically extreme, not generally accepted point of view. Virgil Lasis (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Insisting on rewriting articles on European history from Soviet POV violates a bunch of policies (notably the policy on neutrality, the one on fringe theories and several others) and is similar to insisting on rewriting the article on Earth from Flat Earth POV. It would get you nowhere. Virgil Lasis (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, eliminating a valid POV (even if you call it flat Earth theory it isn't), violate NPOV. That is why the current version is good enough compromise, which adheres to NPOV more than any other version. (Igny (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
No, describing the Soviet occupation as a "liberation", as it was a fact, merely citing a political Cold War-era Soviet source, which has no scholarly value, is not NPOV. Igny, please stop revert-warring[20] your Soviet nationalist and fringe theory POV into the article. Numerous users have asked you to stop pushing Soviet nationalist POV in this article and your edits have been reverted by several users. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing to my attention the team tagging issue, but it is not surprising to me, nor it is the first time this happened. This is actually precisely the reason why I regret that User:Piotrus was blocked and topic banned. He saw the middle ground when he looked at it. (Igny (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
There is no team issue, I wasn't even aware of this article or any of its other contributors until yesterday. There may be a team issue of some users pushing extreme Soviet POV on multiple articles and often cooperating with the goal of distorting widely accepted historical facts, though - like attacking the article on Occupation of the Baltic states, which was seemingly a quite neutral and encyclopedic article for a long time in order to enforce Soviet POV. I don't know Piotrus, so I don't have any opinion of him. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Team tagging is not just about canvassing, it is also about edit-warring as a team. From WP:TEAM:
Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives in an article. Tag teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it "violates consensus."
Sounds familiar? (Igny (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
Your additions to the article are both politically extreme fringe theories, insulting and POV. You should NOT be surprised that MANY users will disagree with you, as they indeed have. I don't know any of the other contributors here. I'm just opposing your attempt to push an extremist POV like the claim that the Baltic countries were "liberated" in the article, and some other articles, like the article on the Cold War, where you tried to change the description of the fraudulent Polish legislative election, 1947 to "first Polish elections". Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for calling my contributions extremist again. If you do not drop this offensive rhetoric, I will stop taking your arguments seriously. (Igny (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
I reserve the right to describe the POV that the Baltic countries were "liberated" by Joseph Stalin, when they were in fact occupied in 1939 and again in 1944 and the peoples of those countries severely persecuted, as extremist. I think most people including most scholars would agree with that view. It's similar to claiming that France was liberated by Nazi Germany. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, most people do not care about this events at all. And among those who care, there are about the same number of supporters of both POVs. (Igny (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
Outside of Russia, I think you will have a hard time finding anyone who thinks Stalin was anything but a criminal and the biggest mass murderer of the century. I.e., the predominant view is that Stalin was a criminal and a mass murderer, and his policies were criminal and genocidal. His policies towards the Baltic countries constituted crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crimes, and have been ruled illegal by international courts and other bodies as well as the countries in question. Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a straw man argument, and a fallacy. I am not talking about Stalin here. (Igny (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
Then who are you talking about? The Baltic countries were occupied in 1939 and 1944 by Stalin's regime, and the Baltic peoples severely persecuted by Stalin. You claim Stalin's armies "liberated" them. Virgil Lasis (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It is very easy and at the same time very hard to argue with the straw man. Any outside observer would clearly see the logical fallacy in your argument, and yet to prove it to you may take quite some time. But to summarize what I am actually insisting on adding to the article, it was the different and well sourced perspective from POV of many Russians that they liberated the Eastern Europe, Baltic countries included, from Nazism in 1944-45. (Igny (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

If you have a reliable source showing that "many Russians" "felt" that they "liberated" the Baltic countries in (1939 and?) 1944 (I'm sure most Germans felt the same way when they "liberated" the Baltic countries as well), there would be no problem including a sentence on how the "many Russians" viewed it somewhere. There is a separate section on how this is viewed by Russia. That is something totally different from revert-warring "The Soviet Union liberated the Baltic states" as it was a neutral fact into the main history section (section "End of German occupation"), backed up only by a Soviet source in Russian, which appears to be some official Soviet report from 1984, i.e. with no scholarly value whatsoever. The source doesn't prove the countries were liberated. The source only proves that a totalitarian state in 1984 claimed that the countries were liberated. It's similar to claiming that Germany liberated the Baltic countries in 1941, backed up with a Nazi-era German official source. It could easily be argued that most Germans and many Balts "felt" it that way.

  • The Soviet Union invaded and occupied the Baltic countries in 1939 under the provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: Neutral fact
    • Only Stalinists and National Socialists recognize the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
  • Germany invaded and occupied the then Soviet-controlled territories of the Baltic countries in 1941: Neutral fact
  • Germany claimed that their invasion was a liberation (and many Balts, especially Latvians, considered the Germans as liberators, especially early in the war): Neutral fact
  • The Soviet Union invaded and re-occupied the then German-controlled territories of the Baltic countries in 1944: Neutral fact
  • The Soviet Union claimed that their invasion was a liberation: Neutral fact
  • The Baltic countries officially consider the Soviet Union and Germany as occupying powers, and neither of them as liberators: Neutral fact

To sum it up, the Baltic countries were invaded and occupied by two different countries which both claimed they were liberators, a claim that is rejected by the Baltic countries. The first country that, unprovoked, invaded and occupied the Baltic countries, and the country which occupied them for the longest period by far and was responsible for severe persecution of Balts including deportation of large numbers of people to Gulag concentration camps, was the Soviet Union. The Soviet occupation is considered to be an illegal occupation by all the governments of the Baltic countries, and additionally by the European Parliament, international courts, the United Nations, the United States, in short, everyone who matters in today's world. Its symbols (flag, anthem etc.) are even considered criminal occupation symbols in Lithuania and other countries and banned by law as extremist. Virgil Lasis (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Spot on. Wording and emphasis is vital on how the neutrality is conveyed throughout the article. Still, the Baltics were "liberated" from Nazism - even though the guys who "liberated" them only left in 1994. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You know Soviet army left Germany in 1989 as well. Do you contest it was liberated from Nazism in 1945?--Dojarca (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Liberated? Hardly. All areas that came under Soviet control remained unfree, where people where murdered and oppressed and countless crimes against humanity and war crimes were committed, people were oppressed, persecuted and denied basic human rights for decades, until the liberation, which took place only in 1990, when freedom and democracy was restored. The fact that western Germany became a free country had nothing to do with the Soviet Union, on the contrary. West Germany had to use enormous amounts of its national budget to defend itself against the Soviet Union from the 1950s to 1989-1991. It remained a free country throughout the (cold) war due to the enormous efforts of the West Germans and its allies and friends, the United States in particular.
The word liberation is only used in political propaganda to describe a situation when a state regains control over its own territory that had been temporarily under the control of a different country (occupied). Germany was hardly occupied by anyone before 1945. The same is the case in the Baltic countries, they were free, independent states, and didn't need any "liberation" in 1939. They were in a constant state of occupation by the two signatories of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (=the Soviet Union and Germany) from 1939 to 1991. They were liberated, in the correct (non-stalinist) sense of the word, in 1991. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The Soviets left East Germany in 1989, but all of Germany was liberated from Nazism in 1945. Most western european countries were liberated from Nazism, but did not have totalitarian regimes installed, even though authoritarian thinking parties were still allowed. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 23:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not correct to use the word "liberation" in this context, specifically not in regard to the Soviet invasion of the Baltic countries, or Germany, because "liberation" is in the context of invasions and territorial conquests only used to describe a situation when a country regains control over its own territory. Neither the Baltic countries nor Germany are Soviet territory. The political (ab)use of the word "liberation" in a more loose sense is irrelevant here. Stalinism was no better than Nazism. Areas invaded by the Soviet Union did not become free. In many areas, conditions became worse for most people. Being occupied is the exact opposite of being liberated, strictly speaking. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
So, what do you call what the Allies did to Nazism in Europe in 1945 in neutral terms? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 23:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
They defeated (and occupied) Germany and its allies. NPOV is not that complicated, really. An encyclopedia should use the formally correct terms, not unprecise, politically charged rhetoric. Terms like surrender or occupation have precice and undisputed legal meanings, the word "liberation" doesn't have a precice or legal meaning, but is political rhetoric. Also, states, not political movements, can engage each other in war. What is relevant as far as this article is concerned, though, is the alleged "liberation" of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union in 1939/1944 - an outrageous claim as these countries weren't Soviet territory, but were occupied since 1939. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
So they did - defeated Germany and its allies. Yes, that is neutral point of view - what took you so long? :) Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 23:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Took me so long? I have never asserted anything else. Point is, the word liberation doesn't add anything of value to the article as it doesn't have a precice definition, it's never a neutral fact, it's a political term, and if used in the article, it should be presented like "the Soviet government claimed that they liberated the Baltic countries" or something in that direction. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, excuse my tongue in cheek comment above, but many discussions can be cut short by describing what things are, instead of describing what they are not. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
So as I predicted you do not consider defeating Nazism liberation. Should Liberation of Paris be renamed in this case? Maybe it should be moved to Occupation of France (1945-2009) just because the legitimate collaborationist French government was overturned by the Allies and the power still has not be returned to its successors?--Dojarca (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
These comments do not deserve an answer. Virgil Lasis (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "occupation". Indeed it is a legal term, referring to exercising military control over foreign territory. Using the term "occupation" in this article means Wikipedia takes sides with those who contests territorial integrity of the USSR in 1940-1991.--Dojarca (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Not using the term occupation means taking side with a totalitarian state and contesting the territorial integrity of the Baltic countries. If we were to accept Sovet annexation of the Baltic countries, then all Nazi German wartime annexations must be treated in the same way (they are obviously not). A fundamental change of policy, in other words. Other articles are based on what is the mainstream view of scholars, democratic states, international courts of law and other international institutions. The view of the countries in question (the Baltic countries), major democratic countries like the United States, important international bodies like the European Union, the United Nations and international courts of law, carry more weight than the POV of a former, totalitarian state like the Soviet Union, IMHO. Virgil Lasis (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong, Wikipedia does not promote point of view of democratic powers, the only rule is neutrality, not the benefit of democracy. Please tell me what Wikipedia's rule says Wikipedia should represent point of view of the United States? Should in this case we depict Kosovo as an independent country? By the way, 'democracy' is an ambiguious term. For example, I am sure so-called countries of people's democracy never disputed that the Baltic republics were incorporated in the USSR. Regarding international organizations, United Nations never recognized independent Baltic states before 1990s and accepted them in the UN only as successors to the respective Soviet republics. Regarding courts, I know that European Court of Human Rights in the Kononov vs. Latvia case ruled that Kononov should be judged according the Soviet law which was in force in Latvia in 1943. When Baltic states demanded Germany to pay them reparations for the war, a German court ruled that all reparations to the USSR already paid, so the Baltic states being parts of the USSR at the time have no right to receive any further reparations.--Dojarca (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding scolars, Dietrich Loeber (a proponent of the occupation theory) in his article in Baltic Yearbook of International Law, Volume 3 (2003) admits that there is no scholarly consensus on the issue and outlines 12 differnt points of view of his opponents published in major journals on legal science in USA, Great Britain, France, Russia, and Germany. Among those who does not support the theory of the legal continuity of Baltic states he cites numerous opponents, including Martti Koskenniemi, Marja Letho, Ruiz Farbi, Rein Muellerson, Shaw, Oliver Doerr, Ebenroth, Stern, Beauchense, Eisemann, Torrequadrada, Richard Visek, Tarja Langstrom, Stem, Hermanis, Albats, Himmer, Herad, Turp, Cassese, Grashoff, Hafner, Boizel, Lech Antonowicz, Czaplinski, Saxer, Tichy, Crawford, Weyer, Duursma, Grant, Stanislav Chernichenko.--Dojarca (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia doesn't automatically need to accept the American point of view. The point is, the countries themselves and their democratically elected, legimate governments, consider the Soviet Union and Germany as occupying powers. Most of the international community, the United States was only an example because it's the world's most important country, accept the view of the Baltic states today. The question of whether an annexation was accepted by democratic countries does seem to be an issue in other cases. Insisting that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (including the Soviet annexation of the Baltic countries) was legitimate is not a mainstream view in Europe - that would obviously also mean accepting the German claims under the provisions of the pact, like German annexations of parts of Poland. We can describe the points of view of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, but not present them as the truth. Virgil Lasis (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Whether the countries are democratic plays no role in Wikipedia. There are 13 different points of view in academic community and only one of these 13 supports idea of legal continuity of Baltic states. Why only one of these 13 is represented as as fact here? There are numrerous jurists who contest the official position of Baltic states for various reasons.--Dojarca (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Even I know the answer to that question: The different points of views are not represented since noone introduced them as verifiable sources. Or did I miss something? Lettonica (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

the theory of the legal continuity of Baltic states? this is a misunderstanding at best. The "legal continuity" of Baltic states is not a theory but the doctrine held by all the Baltic states. At the same time anybody is free of course to question how and when any third state should celebrate its birthday. But like you already were kind enough Dojarca to provide the source clearly spelling it out on page 36 "The majority of states are in accordance with the position of the Baltic states relating to their international status". So it seems the Baltic states should be free to celebrate their independence days like they used to.--Termer (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Kononov vs. Latvia: the text is here]. I can spot nothing on the Soviet law being in force in Latvia. Instead, the European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States have repeatedly concluded that an illegal occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union took place in 1940 and: "After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991" [21]. This is about the closest to NPOV as it gets under the circumstances. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
In the instant case, the parties and the third party intervener agreed that the applicable domestic criminal legislation applicable to the events of 27 May 1944 was the Criminal Code of Soviet Russia, which was adopted in 1926 and became applicable to the Latvian territory by virtue of the decree of 6 November 1940.[22]--Dojarca (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The quote does contradict the European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States but it does not override them. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Igny, your conduct replacing content sourced from the European Court of Human Rights with something sourced from Mr. Putin is way out of line. Putin is not a historian and his opinion will never replace the conclusions of the Court of Human Rights on Wikipedia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The term "liberated" as in "liberated from Nazism" as in "became free of Nazism" was well sourced and neutral term put in the right context (end of German occupation). The circumstances of how the occupation ended should be put in the right perspective and the Russian / Soviet POV is justified in this section and liberation from Nazism should be pointed out as a fact and not as a mere opinion. The western POV is discussed elsewhere, it was not erased from the article. And stop readding Western POV into a section on Russian POV. (Igny (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC))
Your claims are completely preposterous. The Soviet invasion of the Baltic countries was not a liberation any more than the German invasion of the Baltic countries. If the Soviet invasion is described as a liberation, the German invasion must be described as a liberation too. After all, it was a liberation from stalinism.
But frankly, I don't think the word "liberation" has anything to do in the article at all. "Liberation from nazism" and "liberation from stalinism" are political rhetoric (propaganda) that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article (except maybe in the description of Soviet and German propaganda, respectively), and that has nothing to do with the correct terminology as far as territorial conquests are concerned. Neutral words with actual, undisputed (and partially legal) meanings include invasion, occupation, conquest. Several other neutral words exist that can describe the fact that one country took control over a territory. "Liberation" doesn't have any meaning at all, it's pure propaganda (in this case, the propaganda of the regime of Joseph Stalin, widely considered to be criminal today). Please stop adding your own point of view to the article and please stop adding worthless Soviet sources that don't add anything of value to the article and don't prove any of your outrageous claims as I explained to you above. Virgil Lasis (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope you realize that every time you use the words "worthless" or extremist with respect to reliable sources, your arguments lose any value. (Igny (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
I must point out once again, Igny, that you did not respond to the issues raised. That leaves an impression that you are not capable of doing so - or not willing to discuss the problems.
While I disagree with Virgil Lasis in his use of rhetoric, he does raise a valid point. We have Nazi sources describing how they "liberated" Baltics from Soviets and Soviet sources describing how they "liberated" Baltics from Nazis. So what exactly is the difference between those two "liberations" and why exactly should we treat them differently from each-other? As a result, Baltic states remained occupied in both cases.
--Sander Säde 09:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Igny, please answer a straight question by simply 'yes' or 'no': Did the Baltic nations become free in the result of the Baltic Offensive? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they became free of Nazism. That is what the article says SU liberated them from Nazism, with sources. (Igny (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Are you saying, the Soviet Union did not control the Baltics since 1944? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
A 1984 Soviet political source is not a "reliable source" in any other aspect than proving what the position of the Soviet Union, a former totalitarian country that is totally discredited today and condemned by most of the world, was in 1984. It does not prove that the Baltic countries were "liberated" any more than Nazi-era German sources describing their invasion as a liberation prove that the Germans liberated those countries. The description as extremist and worthless in a scholarly context of course refers to the fact that the source was published by the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union and has no academic credibility (it's not a reliable source and it does not corroborate your claims in any way), I think most people today consider totalitarian ideologies to be extremist - a Nazi source would be extremist in exactly the same way (Wikimedia Commons even has a disclaimer that file descriptions from a German archive that dates from the Nazi era might be "politically extreme" - the same of course would apply to anything published in the Soviet Union. When I used that word, I did it in the same, legitimate sense as Wikimedia Commons does, merely pointing out that it was (old) political propaganda published by the Soviet Union, not a scholarly, reliable, neutral, relevant or mainstream source). Virgil Lasis (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberation by Nazis (arbitrary break)

The issue of "liberation by Nazis" was raised here. The difference between these claims was the outcome of the war, who ended up victorious in that war mattered. Surely, if Nazism won, all the textbooks ended up claiming that Nazis liberated the world from Stalinism. Unfortunately for the Nazism, as a direct result of the Nuremberg trials, they did not liberate anybody from anything. Just ask 90+ percent of the Baltic Jews. As Soviet Union got their victory, they also got the right to the "liberation claims". Of course, as the Cold war erupted, the Soviet claims came under scrutiny in the West. And after Soviet Union dissolution, the Baltic historians joined the chorus, rewriting the past. That is what called historical revisionism. (Igny (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

"As Soviet Union got their victory, they also got the right to the "liberation claims""...??? Says who? That's really completely irrelevant. Besides, the Soviet Union lost the last and most important war, the cold one. As a consequence, all the Baltic countries officially consider the Soviet occupation as an illegal, criminal occupation. That's the only thing that should matter by your logic. It's not relevant to ask only a small percentage of the population of the countries, ask the Balts whether they were "liberated" by the Soviet Union. No, the mainstream view in democratic countries, that has been established by international courts of law, the European Union, bodies of the United Nations, and the United States, is not "historical revisionism". The claim that Stalin "liberated" anyone, specifically those he persecuted and murdered, is definitely historical revisionism. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Baltic states did not win the Cold war. They did not liberate Soviet Union in 1990. Soviet Union liberated them (set them free) in 1990. And again I am not talking about Stalin here. (Igny (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
The Baltic states were liberated from communism, to use wordings similar to the ones you prefer, in 1991. The Soviet Union didn't liberate anyone in its history, it fell apart. The Soviet invasions of the Baltic countries obviously had a lot to do with Stalin, the undisputed dictator of the Soviet Union - much like "Hitler invaded Poland" is a common expression, one can certainly say that Stalin invaded various countries including Poland and the Baltic countries. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I just read User_talk:Igny/Annexation_of_Baltic_states_by_Soviet_Union. User:Illythr has valid arguments that he tries to explain to you in a polite way. You, on the other hand, are pushing some conspiracy theory that the Baltic countries are not really independent today because they are NATO and EU members. It should be clear to everyone that such theories have nothing to do in an encyclopedia. As Ilythr puts it: "As I said, complaining about things will not help anything at all. Everyone makes their own choices and Wikipedia is definitely not the place to chide about it" Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was a polite debate (in contrast to this one). And it was not a conspircy theory it was my personal opinion based on what I have read in the past. I am entitled to disclose my personal opinion at the talk pages without the need to provide sources, right? (Igny (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
You are also pushing your personal opinion in the article, without backing it up with reliable sources, only providing irrelevant Soviet sources. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not, so stop trying to offend me with you baseless accusations. (Igny (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Then stop offending other editors by edit warring. Now back to the issue at hand. You are saying, the Baltic states were liberated from communism in 1991 which means, they were not set free of communism in 1944. Therefore the term "liberate" is wrong for 1944. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The year and the context (section on "end of German occupation") are correct for getting rid of Nazism. (Igny (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Did you read the discussion carefully? I said that the Baltic states were liberated from communism in 1991, when using the same sort of expressions as Igny who is edit-warring the POV statement "The Soviet Union liberated the Baltic states from Nazism" into the article. I don't really think we should use unencyclopedic POV propaganda like that in the article at all. But if he persists with his edit-warring, we should also change the description of the German invasion to "Germany liberated the Baltic countries from Stalinism in 1941" in order to maintain neutrality. Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Now it is reductio ad absurdum, the logical fallacies in your arguments just annoy me, but they do not mean you are right. (Igny (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Even after getting rid of Nazism, the Baltics were not free. Therefore it is incorrect to use the term 'liberate'. However, the Soviets could get credited using other words. How about: The Soviet Union disposed the Nazi regime and resumed its occupation... for a compromise? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with use of disposed Nazi regime. Resuming occupation is discussed the very next section, there is no need to point it out in a section discussing the Soviet achievement. (Igny (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
'Resumed its occupation' is unacceptable because it means taking sides by Wikipedia. I suggest 'restored as part of the USSR' if you do not like 'liberation'--Dojarca (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I still do not get your drift. If the United Nations representing every capable country in the world including Russia and the European Court of Human Rights including members from every European country including Russia represent the Western POV then are you saying no NPOV can exist? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this is true in general. Practically, any statement is a POV in some way. We just attempt to combine the statements in a neutral way. (Igny (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
United Nations does not represent the so-called 'Western POV'. United Nations never recognized the Baltic States before the USSR did.--Dojarca (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Except we are not required to give equal standing to fringe views, see WP:FRINGE. And "liberation" definitely is a fringe view, as can be seen from a lack of modern scientific sources supporting it (0 so far). Just because there are creationist nutcases out there, that is not a reason to give equal validity to creationism in Evolution article. --Sander Säde 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
How the dominant view in the world [23] can be a fringe view????--Dojarca (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I second Sander Säde. I have indeed been pointing out repeatedly that "liberation" is a politically extreme fringe view that should not be given undue prominence. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should just keep "occupied", it's neutral, correct and encyclopedic, and is the official view of the countries in question and the rest of the world except Putin's Russia. "Disposed Nazi regime" is not a very encyclopedic wording, it sounds rather odd. In that case, I would want to use a similar wording for the 1941 German invasion, arguably, it disposed the Stalinist regime and should by the same logic be credited with that. Virgil Lasis (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: NPOV: This the policy: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." A quote from the Soviet historiography or from Putin can be regarded as a POV but not as a reliable source itself. Instead, the UN and the European Court of Human Rights represent the NPOV on political matters. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This is also not true. European court of human rights does not represent NPOV. It represent itself. The same is with the UN. By the way, UN never recognized the Baltic States before the USSR did and accepted the states as successors to the respective Soviet republics.--Dojarca (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Every capable organisation and scholar represents itself while if their analyses are correct from a NPOV, they represent that as well. Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
And 'Resumed its occupation' is unacceptable in an article titled Occupation of the Baltic States which says the "Red Army troops occupied the three Baltic nations" in 1940? How schizophrenic is that? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Any occupation if existed ended when the states were incorporated in the USSR: no country can occupy its own territory. Just as Allied occupation of Germany ended with the creation of GDR and West Germany.--Dojarca (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Your hypothesis could make sense were it ever shared by a reliable historical analysis. Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This is common definition of occupation.--Dojarca (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Non-Soviet, non-Putinist source for the case of the Baltics 1944, please. Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
On "Any occupation if existed ended...no country can occupy its own territory" interesting logic this "you can't occupy what's already yours" something we've heard here many times. The way I'm getting this: if you steel something it becomes yours after you've put it into your pocket; or once a stolen item is in your pocket it's no longer steeling?--Termer (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not as simple as someone tries to represent. Occupation means that the territory is controlled by a hostile army and is ruled by some occupation law (separate form an occupant's domestic law). The Baltic states were converted into Soviet republics (with same degree of autonomy as other republic had), and their population was treated as the Soviet Union's citizens. Their position in the USSR was indistinguishable from that of other republics, so I see no signs of conventional occupation here. Of course the annexation of these states (performed de facto via initial military occupation) was hardly legal (and is considered illegal by many states), therefore, these states can be considered "illegally annexed". However, this relates more to the way these states become the USSR's members, not to their status there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
PS. The sources in support of my post:
"Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have been subjected to an intensive campaign aimed at integrating them into the Soviet Union. The Communists have reorganizedth e economy,d eportedt heir opponentsa, nd tried to re-educate the Baltic peoples in a spirit of devotion to the USSR. Since the death of Stalin they have let up somewhat, allowing a greater degree of personal freedom; but there is no indication that they would ever willingly give the Baltic nations their freedom. Despite their almost hopeless position, the Baltic peoples have continuedt o clingt o their old national ideals and to hope for liberation"
"ALTHOUGH the three Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia had previously existed as independent states for only two decades, their annexation in 1940 by the Soviet Union remains an international issue. While the USSR has steadfastly maintained that they entered into the Soviet Union of their own free will and has bitterly attacked any challenge to the legitimacy of their incorporation, the United States has refused to recognize this action and continues to grant diplomatic status to representatives of the former national regimes"(The Sovietization of the Baltic States Author(s): Alfred Erich Senn Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 317, The Satellites in Eastern Europe (May, 1958), pp. 123-129)
"BROADLY speaking, one might justifiably conclude that the Soviet Baltic republics, with the highest standard of living and the highest ratings in respect of almost all socio- and cultural-economic indicators' have not been victimized with regard to the general allocation of resources among republics in the Soviet Union. That is, one could not readily make a case for Russian or centralized-state imperialism or colonialism. Although the high levels of industrialization (especially of the technology-intensive type) and modernized agriculture are the underpinnings of the Baltic republics' high standard of living, there have been repeated accusations, both in the West and in the Soviet Baltic, that the rapid and intensive industrialization of the region has led to large-scale immigration, primarily of Russians. This population influx has in turn raised the spectre of russification and given rise to outbursts of political nationalism. Thus, in the Baltic case, one's concern needs to be focused on the possible latent functions of the over-allocation of developmental resources." (Population Processes and the Nationality Issue in the Soviet Baltic Author(s): Tonu Parming Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jul., 1980), pp. 398-414)
Krystyna Marek (Krystyna Marek Reviewed work(s):Baltic States: A Study of their Origin and National Development; Their Seizure and Incorporation into the USSR. by Igor I. Kavass ; Adolph Sprudzs Source: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 586-588) as well as the book she reviewed also speak about destruction of Baltic states "by their incorporation into the Soviet Union". In other words, by 1973 (the date the review has been written) these states had already been incorporated into the USSR. Therefore, I believe neutral sources confirm the major Dojarca's point: you cannot occupy the country you already annexed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_5&oldid=1252530452"