Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Recognition and non-recognition of annexation and occupation

IMO, this section does not go into nuances of recognition—non-recognition. A better description of the issue is provided in the Malksoo's book Estonian version of the book, where four different categories have been outlined: the states which didn't recognize the annexation de jure, the states which didn't recognized it de jure but recognized de facto, the states that did recognize the annexation de jure and the states that abstained from any steps that could be understood as recognition or non-recognition. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I believe "and occupation" is redundant, because the only issue was legality of annexation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that such an extensive list should be significantly shortened to just the nations explicitly rejecting the annexation, not simply ignoring the issue. Alternatively, the list may be more inclusive to include USSR's satellites which did recognize the annexation. (Igny (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

Anything on Wikipedai should be based on the sources. there is no need nor any justification to start manipulating it or change what do they say. The current list is based on a reliable secondary published sources. In case you can come up with any other WP:RS that look into this, feel free to add relevant facts to the article.--Termer (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States

European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States has a number of issues (such as POV-title and synthesis). Are there any suggestions on how to fix them? At the moment, I can only suggest splitting the article into individual cases. (Igny (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

It is a pure COAT. In actuality the article discusses the legal status of the Baltic States in the USSR and should be renamed accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

There are some edits recently introduced that mislead the reader. Fr example "In the United Kingdom, for example, the Baltic embassies ceased operations in the 1970s" is taken out of context and is misleading for following reasons. since after the occupation all Baltic diplomats retained their diplomatic privileges for life according to the policies of the UK, and most of the Baltic diplomats had been passed away by the 1970 and therefore the Estonian and Latvian embassies ceased operations in the 1970.
the case of Lithuania however was different: Vincas Balickas assumed the role of charge d'affaires of the Lithuanian embassy to UK on January 22 1968 and hold this position until December 11 1991, after which he became the ambassador of Lithuania. Please read Diplomats Without a Country FFI By James T. McHugh, James S. Pacy , p 223 ISBN 0313318786 FFI. So therefore factually correct would be something like this "In the United Kingdom, for example, the Baltic embassies except Lithuanian ceased operations in the 1970s".

The second Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania understand themselves to have been the occupied states..." first of all is a poor use of language, the countries "understand themselves", what is that? Also " However, the moral approach of the European countries to non-recognition was quite narrow and theoretical" needs to point out who says so next to the '1960 resolution of the Assembly of Western European Union on Situation after 20 years of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states' and the '1983 European Parliament's resolution on occupied Baltic States'. etc.--Termer (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:all Baltic diplomats retained their diplomatic privileges for life according to the policies of the UK, according to one of the sources taken from this article, the UK excluded the Baltic diplomats from the Diplomatic List. So please stop misleading us. (Igny (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC))
Re: "Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania understand themselves to have been the occupied states..." first of all is a poor use of language, the countries "understand themselves", what is that?" Since these words are an almost verbatim quote from the Holoboff's book (see the ref) your words should be re-directed to this author.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

POV title tag

I have placed a POV-title tag per all my arguments above. To summarize, the current title is heavily slanted toward the Baltic nationalistic POV of describing the whole period of 1940-1991 as an occupation. While such POV is certainly notable and deserves a thorough discussion, it is difficult to defend the facts that annexation =/= occupation and Soviet occupation =/= Nazi occupation in the article under such title, even though several serious scholars and historians and politicians raised and discussed these issues.

The article also gives an undue weight to comparison of Soviet and Nazi activities in the area. While the Nazi invasion is relevant enough to discuss in the article on Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic states, when these events are combined in an article under such a POV-title, it implicitly implies that these events were equivalent or equally evil, although it is clearly and demonstrably far from the truth. Absence of the term annexation from the title is primarily aimed at advancing the similarities and at the same time hiding the differences between Nazi and Soviet activities.

The very fact that 90 percent of the article discusses occupation and annexation of Baltic States by Soviet Union should be a sufficient reason for the move to a more adequate title. It should not have been controversial at all, and in fact I expected that more reasonable people would join the discussion, and a consensus on such a trivial matter would be reached. Oh well, it was a wasted opportunity to fix a serious flaw in this article.

I admit that I may need a consensus to make a move to a different title (even if it is better in my opinion). Thankfully, I don't need a majority approval for placing the tag pointing at the obvious defect. (Igny (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but I though Malksoo was the Baltic author. Therefore, I don't think the statement on the "Baltic POV" is fully correct. Let me also remind you that the principles of neutrality cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. Therefore, I believe no consensus is needed for changing a non-neutral article's name. I propose to discuss the issue on the WP:POVN--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. I don't think that "annexation ≠ occupation, and Soviet occupation ≠ Nazi occupation" is a Russian POV. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Annexation vs. occupation is discussable subject; but claiming that Soviet occupation was less harmful than Nazi occupation is... Anyway, I asked third party opinion of Neutral point of view. Peltimikko (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You didn't get the point. The discussion is not about a consequences of Nazi and Soviet domination, but about the legal issues. Whereas in 1941-44 the Baltic states were under Nazi occupation, it is not completely correct to state that these states were under Soviet occupation during 1945-91. Majority sources use the term annexation, and a number of states did recognize that annexation either de jure or de facto. Therefore it would be POV to use only the term "occupation" to describe the period of 1945-91.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Who were worse forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re:but claiming that Soviet occupation was less harmful than Nazi occupation is... Don't you think it is childish to say "Ok, we admit that Nazis and their collaborators killed a lot of Jews, but look at what Soviets did, they rigged elections!!!" Essentially that is the tone of this article, which in my opinion can easily be fixed by renaming. (Igny (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC))
Uh, was that supposed to be a really really bad joke? While I am not familiar with specifics of Latvia and Lithuania, in Estonia, 1940-41 Soviets killed (or "went missing") roughly 10 000 civilians. About 7800 citizens were killed during the German occupation. I am not sure of the number of killed during the second Soviet occupation, but I seem to remember nine thousand deaths. --Sander Säde 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: thousands killed by Soviets. Care to provide sources? How many of those killed were suspected of collaboration with Nazis? Of other anti-Soviet activities, such as participation in Operation Jungle? (Igny (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC))
Re:About 7800 citizens were killed during the German occupation.Do you mean that 26000 Jews killed by Arajs Kommando alone do not count as citizens? (Igny (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC))
Igny, if I understand correctly, Sander Säde speaks about Estonia, whereas Arajs Kommando was formed and acted mostly in Latvia. In addition, the point is not the number of victims: Stalinist authorities killed even more people in Russian Federation, however we cannot speak about RFSFR as the occupied state in 1917-91.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)And Arajs Kommando was active in Estonia during years...?
It is perfectly OK to murder someone if they are "suspected"... that speaks for itself of your mindset, Igny. Do I really have to point out that during the first Soviet occupation, Soviets and Nazis were allies - and there were no Nazi collaborators, too?
Sources - really easy to find, but a nice compiled table can be found here.
--Sander Säde 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, off-topic, but since you mention Arajs Kommando so often, you might want to read about Vasili Blokhin, probably the most "prolific" executioner of innocent people who has ever existed. His body count alone is more than Arajs Kommando (and no, I am not trying to say that Arajs Kommando were the good guys or anything like that). --Sander Säde 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
This is really off-topic, however, let me remind you that Arajs Kommandos were volunteers who alone killed more innocent people than the Soviets did during the Katyn massacre.
Re: "during the first Soviet occupation, Soviets and Nazis were allies " Although such a statement can be found in some sources that tangentially mention this issue, no reliable source, that paid a due attention to the detailed analysis of the subject state that. The USSR and the Nazi Germany had never been the allies (although, during the end of September 1939 they can be considered co-belligerents). Let me remind you also that Hitler was displeased with Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, and even used this occupation as a pretext to start Barbarossa.
One way or the another, this discussion has no relation to the thread's subject: the scale of a damage inflicted to the Baltic states by Nazi and the Soviets is not per se an argument to equate a legal status of the Soviet and Nazi in the Baltics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. "It is perfectly OK to murder someone if they are "suspected"... " Remember that the events you refer to (execution of real and alleged Nazi supporters) took place during the war, and this war was the most brutal and bloody war in history. Obviosly, real and alleged Nazi supporters were tried and executed according to martial laws, and that was normal for those times. Remember, even Nuremberg trial was performed with violations of what we now call "international laws".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
How is the status of Arajs Kommandos relevant? Or legality - or brutality of wars? Murder is a murder. Murder of civilians has no justification, period. Trying to say it is alright to kill someone without trial - or just Soviet show trial - if the person collaborated with Nazis, or was suspected in collaboration, doesn't justify the murder. It is still a murder. And if anyone will claim that a murder of an Estonian and a Jew are different in any way, then they are racists, flat and simple. --Sander Säde 15:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: "How is the status of Arajs Kommandos relevant?" No more and no less relevant than Blokhin's "prolificacy". It was not me who started this discussion. My only point was that whereas Blokhin was the NKVD officer, and, therefore, he had to obey orders, the members of Arajs Kommando were volunteers who could leave this unit at any moment. In addition, this was not the only example of voluntary participation of the Latvians and Lithuanians (to be perfectly honest, I know nothing about the Estonians) in Holocaust. In addition, even if we leave other cases of Baltic Holocaust beyond the scope, 26,000 Jews killed by Arajs Kommando alone is a really big number. Remember, execution of ca 20,000 Poles is still poisoning Russo-Polish relations.
Re: "Trying to say it is alright to kill someone without trial - or just Soviet show trial - if the person collaborated with Nazis, or was suspected in collaboration, doesn't justify the murder." Execution without trial is a crime. However, it is natural to expect that war time prosecution in the areas liberated from Nazi would be performed via military tribunals, not civil courts. Therefore, execution according to martial laws (via military tribunals) can hardly be considered illegal.
Re: "And if anyone will claim that a murder of an Estonian and a Jew are different in any way, then they are racists". Correct. However, this principle works only if it is applied universally. In relative numbers, no more Estonians were the victims of Stalinism than, e.g. Russians. Therefore, your point is not completely clear for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
PS "His body count alone is more than Arajs Kommando" Blokhin killed ca 7,000 Poles (of course, the word "just" is inappropriate here). His other victims have no direct relevance to the thread. BTW, remember that his last victim was he himself, and, although I don't think that was an adequate expiation, however...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
7000 Poles was just only one protracted execution. Overall his body count is considered to be even up to 50 000 people. --Sander Säde 17:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Totally, about 1 million people (excluding GULAG camp execution) were executed by Stalin authorities, and, frankly, I don't think the number of victims per executioner is relevant to this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
This has become a gross violation of wp:forum. May I encourage you to think of ways to address the matter at hand - how to make the title more neutral. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point Jaan. There are two ways to resolve the problem: to bring the article's name in accordance with the article's content or vise versa. If majority of the editors prefer to discuss mostly military aspects (1940-45 events), I see no problems with this title (and with the military style infobox). However, if we decided that the article covers the whole period of foreign domonation in the Baltics (1940-91), the name should be changed to conform with what the majority sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for NPOV title: Geopolitics of the Baltic states 1939—1991. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two ways to resolve the problem: to bring the article's name in accordance with the article's content or vise versa. If majority of the editors prefer to discuss mostly military aspects (1940-45 events), I see no problems with this title (and with the military style infobox). However, if we decided that the article covers the whole period of foreign domonation in the Baltics (1940-91), the name should be changed to conform with what the majority sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Geopolitics of...: does not read like a standard title of a historical event.
Re: Two ways to resolve the problem: Technically, to bring the title to correspond to the content is easier. I still strongly propose to rename it to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states, which is a common term to denote the foreign control of the region (94,200 Google hits for the exact expression). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Despite closing the request to move as no-consensus, I haven't heard yet a sensible argument against such move. Per WP:BOLD I am proceed with the move to force a progress on the stalled discussion. (Igny (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC))
Since the old title was not neutral you didn't have to wait for a consensus for the name change. Neutrality requirements cannot be superseded by the editor's consensus. I personally don't think the new title is optimal, however it is definitely a progress.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently we have seen every possible iteration of the terms on the table already or have we? What would be optimal then? Do you support renaming it to Soviet annexation of the Baltic states and removing the material on the German occupation from this article? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this title is that it pretends to simultaneously describe several too different periods of the Baltic state's history. As a result, it sounds ambiguously: for instance, one can interpret it as: "Occupation and subsequent annexation..." In actuality, the article tells about "forcible annexation" (by the USSR), "military occupation" by Nazi Germany, one more "military occupation" (by the USSR), and finally about the long and relatively quiet period when the Baltic states were full members of the USSR (although against their will). The common term to describe all these periods is "foreign domination", so if we decide to combine all these events in a single article, the best title (IMHO) would probably be "The Baltic states under foreign domination".
Re: "Do you support renaming it to Soviet annexation of the Baltic states and removing the material on the German occupation from this article?" As I already wrote, during this discussion (and after reading sources) I changed my initial opinion. Now I think that although the term "annexation" is the most appropriate, it nevertheless does not fully adequately describe the situation in the Baltic states in 1944-91. Therefore, it would be incorrect to use only this term in the title. In addition "annexation" is the process, not a state: the article with such a title is supposed to tell only about the process of illegal annexation (i.e. 1940, and, probably 1944-45 events), not the full period of 1945-91. With regards to German occupation, if majority of editors will decide that moving these events to a separate article will make the text clearer, I have no objections. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Annexation vs occupation

Hi, I've come here via Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states. I'm not quite sure how adding "annexation" to the title makes the article any more neutral, the official POV (which seems to be already expressed in the article) of the Soviet Union and Russia is that they didn't annex anyone, that the Baltic states willingly joined the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics just like the Baltic states willingly joined the European Union. No one speaks of the EU annexing its member states.

Nor am I sure that the participants here fully understand the relationship between "occupation" and "annexation". I'll try to explain with an analogy. They are not mutually exclusive terms nor is one term is more NPOV than the other, they are just different aspects of the same events, much like for example "fertility" and "conception". Just as conception requires fertility as a prerequisite, so annexation requires occupation as a precondition in most cases. Sometimes conception is not successful, just as annexation may not be generally recognized, but fertility remains as does occupation.

In the diplomatic realm a handful of states certainly offered de facto or even de jure recognition of the annexation, but even more states refused recognition and viewed the period as occupation (see for example the series of Council of Europe resolutions of 1960, 1964, 1980 and 1983). Therefore no general international recognition had been given.

In the academic realm, unlike the question of whether the Ukrainian famine was man-made or natural and we can actually name the scholars who hold the various viewpoints, there simply is no comparable debate with regard to the Baltic occupation question, as far as I can tell. The views of the Estonian scholar Lauri Mälksoo seems to have been discussed extensively on talk, but there are also exists the views of the Swedish scholar Anu Mai Kõll, who regards the period as occupation in her book The Baltic countries under occupation: Soviet and Nazi rule 1939-1991, and the British scholar David James Smith in his book Estonia: independence and European integration. Smith basically supports Mälksoo's view when he asserts, in a nut shell, that "the international community condemned this illegal annexation and never gave legal recognition to the Soviet rule over the Baltic states. This policy of non-recognition gave rise to the principle of legal continuity, which held that de jure, Estonia remained an independent state under illegal occupation throughout the period 1940-91".

So I am not sure where this idea that the word "occupation" is a POV term has come from, since no one has identified a scholar who asserts a contrary view. The point that Smith, Kõll and Mälksoo's make is that an annexation requires general recognition of its legality before it can be said that annexation has ended occupation, but general recognition was denied and hence it remained an occupation. No other scholar has been identified who opposes that view, thus academic consensus on this exists by default. See Britannica's good definition that discusses "annexation" in context of "occupation" [1]. So to sum up, the term "occupation" has a solid scholarly basis and can be considered NPOV as no competing scholarly source refuting that viewpoint has been found. If the concern is the juxtaposition of Soviet and Nazi occupations in the one article, then the obvious solution is to split the article Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and Nazi occupation of the Baltic states.

I hope the above is helpful in resolving this issue. Good luck. 124.180.196.163 (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:"So I am not sure where this idea that the word "occupation" is a POV term has come from" Please, read the whole threads devoted to this issue. The full explanation (with quotes and sources) can be found there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
How about Soviet occupation and incorporation of the Baltic States and Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany (which already exists)? (Igny (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Unilateral move by Igny

Igny, please do not move the article without reaching a consensus first. Your move proposition very clearly did not pass, so why did you decide to unilaterally move the article? Please don't behave like that, achieve consensus. --Sander Säde 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sander Säde, the move was not unilateral. It was supported by some other editors. In addition, let me remind you that neutrality policy cannot be superseded by a consensus. If I understand that rule correct, no consensus in needed to change a non-neutral content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and it was also opposed by more editors. Reviewing administrator closed the case as "no consensus" - and yet Igny decides to go forth and move the article to a name he prefers without any discussion - hence, unilateral. And as for neutrality, that is exactly the reason for WP:RM - if there is a clear support for a name, then the move happens. If there isn't support, then obviously many editors see no issues with the current title. See Requesting potentially controversial moves. Igny is free to start another RM request - hopefully with a more neutral reason then his last one. --Sander Säde 16:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think new RM is needed, it is sufficient to re-examine the current (archived) RM discussion. Let me briefly summarized it.
The editors who supported the move were Igny, Jaan Pärn and I. The editors who opposed to it were you, H2ppyme and M.K., so, if we treat the RM's as a poll, the result should be "no consensus". However, WP is not a democracy, so not the number of votes matter but the strength of the arguments. What arguments were put forward by move's opponents? Let's see.
1. Your argument was that the proposed title reflects a Russian POV that "has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world". This thesis has been completely debunked (with sources) by other editors.
2. M.K.'s argument on "generalizations on the OR edge" is not an argument in favour of the present title. Igny demonstrated that persuasively, so M.K. abstained from further discussion.
3. H2ppyme argument was based on a wrong analogy between Poland and the Baltic states.
Summarising all said above, and taking into account that the arguments that were put forward by the move's proponents were more detailed, logically consistent and were based on reliable sources, I believe the RP closure was premature. RM is not a simple poll where both well substantiated and unsupported opinions have equal weights.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If I moved without the request to move, Sander or others would revert it citing "move without discussion", so I requested the move to generate discussion. As the RM was closed after only 6 people (3v3) showed some opinion, I proceeded with the POV-tag to generate further discussion. After that discussion was largely ignored by the proponents of the old title, I proceeded to move to make a progress on the stalled discussion. So instead of generating further discussion by providing some fresh arguments I see the moving war based on the nonsensical argument of no-consensus at a recent poll where 6 or 7 people showed up. (Igny (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC))
Paul, "this thesis has been completely debunked (with sources)" - uhm, so far zero sources outside of newspaper opinion columns in third-rate newspapers or Soviet propaganda outlets. Since you support the move, could you please come up with a reasonable modern peer-reviewed source supporting Russian POV (official POV, that is - independent Russian historians refuse to support it for some reason). And - it is up to closing admin to decide which side has better arguments, not one side to decide "ours are better" and move it without reaching consensus. Admin weighed the arguments for both sides and obviously found arguments supporting the move not stronger then those against it. --Sander Säde 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
An adopted resolution of European parliament is not enough for you? (Igny (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC))
I don't believe I've seen such resolution confirming that Baltic states joined Soviet Union voluntarily and legally. --Sander Säde 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sander Säde, please, re-read the discussion. Numerous western sources have been cited there. Google.scholar's result testify that "annexation" is used more widely (e.g. 'The annexation of the Baltic states and its effect on the development of law prohibiting forcible seizure of territory', New York Law SchoolJournal of International and Comparative Law 6: 2 (Winter 1985), pp. 301-433.)
With regards to your last post, let me remind you that mixing "annexation" (that may be forceful, illegal etc) with "voluntary annexation" is a straw man fallacy. In addition, your last words suggests that you haven't read the Malksoo's monograph yet.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like Sander, who is happy with the status quo, is just stalling the progress here, if he does not provide some fresh arguments by tomorrow, I will move again. (Igny (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC))
I prefer to assume a good faith, so I believe he simply haven't read the sources carefully. Anyway, to finish with that, let me come back to his major point.
If I am not wrong, the only serious argument against the article's renaming was that the proposed name reflected the Russian POV ("This particular Russian POV has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world, it serves no purpose to reflect this POV in the name of English Wikipedia.") To demonstrate that it is not the case it is sufficient to provide the western reliable sources that use the term "annexation" in a context of the Baltic states. Let's start.
Firstly, the google.scholar.com results (I reproduce them here again) testify that the term "annexation" is more abundant than "occupation":
"occupation of the Baltic states" [2] 253 hits
"occupation of the Baltic states" AND Soviet ([3] 253 hits
"annexation of the Baltic states" ([4]) 365 hits
""annexation of the Baltic states" AND Soviet ([5]) 362 hits
"occupation of the Baltic states" ANDNOT annexation [6] 161 hit
"annexation of the Baltic states" ANDNOT occupation [7] 116 hits.
Therefore, the statement "This particular Russian POV has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world" seems to be completely unsupported.
Secondly, not only the number of sources but their quality matters. Let's check the sources more carefully.
(i) Malksoo book's title is "Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states by the USSR : a study of the tension between normativity and power in international law".
(ii) G Ginsburgs - Journal of Baltic Studies, 1990. p. 11 "he measure was far less stringent than a version discussed earlier, which would have required applicants to prove that they or their ancestors lived in Lithuania before the republic's annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940"
(iii) Øyvind Jæger, SECURITIZING RUSSIA: DISCURSIVE PRACTICES OF THE BALTIC STATES Peace and Conflict Studies, Volume 7, Number 2, November 2000: "In both Estonia and Latvia only those who were legal residents of the pre-war republics on the date of 17 June 1940 (the date of Soviet annexation) and their descendants were granted citizenship, a regulation leaving 90% of the Russian minority in Estonia and 70% in Latvia without citizenship and subject to naturalisation in order to get a Baltic one (Stamers 1996: 192)."
(iv) S. James Anaya The Capacity of International Law to Advance Ethnic or Nationality Rights Claims. Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Aug., 1991), pp. 403-411"Int he situation of the Baltic republics, for instance, a quite persuasive case has been made that their forced annexation into the Soviet Union in 1940 was an illegal usurpation of the republics' status as independent sovereign states, both under contemporary norms as well as under the norms of international law applicable at that time."
I can continue, however, I don't have to do that. Since I am not intended to eradicate the word "occupation" from the article my task is a priori easier than Sander's: I need just to demonstrate that the term "annexation" is being widely used by western sources (at least equally frequently as "occupation"), so it is incorrect to make an emphasis on the last term. I believed I was able to prove my point.
Dixi.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I offered my opinion above as to the meaning of "annexation" within the context of "occupation". You yourself admit that "annexation" is a process and "occupation" is a state, and that this process of annexation occured within the context of the state of occupation. I also pointed out that the Russian/Soviet POV is that they didn't annex anyone, so I am struggling to understand how adding "annexation" to the title actually makes it more neutral. What is the point of adding additional process terms to the title? Why not Occupation, annexation and sovietization of the Baltic states, how does it make the title more neutral than it already is?

As for Google scholar searches, well they don't really prove anything. With the correct selection of terms I can show "occupation" is five times more prevalent than the term "annexation", which in turn is less common that the term "sovietization":

  • "soviet annexation" + "baltic states" 450 hits
  • "sovietization" + "baltic states" 766 hits
  • "soviet occupation" + "baltic states" 2300 hits

I suggest a more fruitful way forward is to do a literature search and tabulate the results here in terms of author, title and summary of the central idea. Hope that helps. Good luck again. 58.165.52.165 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure "Soviet annexation" to be an proper term. "Annexation" and "Baltic states" gives 3,030 hits [8]. You also forgot about "incorporation" and "Baltic states" (4,900 hits) [9] (Obviously, most of these sources discuss the annexation by the Soviets.) Please, remember that you cannot do the same search for "occupation" and "Baltic states": mentions of occupation of the Baltic states by Germany will inevitably be here. Anyway, I do not propose to get rid of the word "occupation" so it is unclear for me what is your point.
Re: "I suggest a more fruitful way forward is to do a literature search ..." Sorry, but that is somewhat non-polite. The participants of current discussion already made a serious literature search, so if you are intended to join this discussion, please, comment on the sources already presented here, and explain, please, why concretely these sources are not adequate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. Interestingly, the same search made in legal opinions and journals gave:
"Soviet annexation" "baltic states" 63 hits [10]
"annexation by the Soviet" 19 hits [11]
"incorporation" "Soviet" "baltic states" 354 hits [12]
"annexation" "Soviet" "baltic states" 306 hits [13]
"occupation" "Soviet" "baltic states" 632 hits (less then "annexation"+"incorporation" (660 hits totally) [14]
(since occupation was followed by occupation, it is interesting to do a cross-search)
"occupation" "Soviet" "baltic states" -annexation 417 hits [15]
"occupation" "Soviet" "baltic states" -annexation -incorporation 333 hits [16]
And, finally, "annexation Soviet incorporation "baltic states" -occupation" gives 183 hits [17]
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I think you should read more carefully what you yourself and others write. Igny wanted to move the article to include more Soviet/official Russian viewpoint. You said "Your argument was that the proposed title reflects a Russian POV that "has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world". This thesis has been completely debunked (with sources) by other editors.". Russian official viewpoint is that Baltic states joined Soviet Union voluntarily and legally. So where is the "complete debunking (with sources)" supporting that viewpoint? So far there is zero support for legal incorporation.

Anon has an excellent new point. Annexation was an one-time event, which occurred when Soviet Union forcefully de facto incorporated Baltic states into its territory. Occupation was an ongoing status for the Baltic states. Since article deals with the whole occupation period 1940-1991, the name of the article should reflect the whole period, not one-time event which occurred during the said period. Currently the article is well balanced, with plenty of discussion about different viewpoints, including Soviet and Russian official POV. I see no reason whatsoever to imbalance the article by renaming it, unless a far more notable portion of the article will deal with the event of annexation. Otherwise we will end up with the familiar scenario - "claim the article is POV and SYNTH, throw out portions that don't fit your views, since article now has no content, put it up for deletion - and voilà, the article that I didn't like is now gone".

--Sander Säde 09:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The suggestion was to move to Occupation and annexation..., not to occupation and legal incorporation... nor occupation and legal annexation... (Igny (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC))
Igny, your RM description had "The main problem in this version of the article is the POV title and a significant advance of the Baltic POV at expense of the Russian POV (violation of the NPOV policy)." We're discussing that RM here. Pay attention to details a bit. --Sander Säde 14:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
From Sander's straw men, let me steer us back to the actual question at hand: does the title Occupation of the Baltic states represent a POV or the NPOV? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, the question is rhetoric. The sources demonstrate unequivocally that the term "annexation", or "incorporation", (in the Baltic context) are being widely used in the English-speaking world. That is quite sufficient to claim that the usage of these terms is not a Russian/Soviet POV, and, conversely, omitting the term "annexation" is a POV (and, btw, not even a Baltic POV, because some serious Baltic authors disagree with that). With regards to the anon's point, we come back to the question of a possibility to militarily occupy already annexed territory (see Malksoo and other sources already discussed here in details).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The question is not rhetoric. I raised it to confirm that a move is necessary. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
And Mälksoo concluded that according to the modern legal views it was an occupation. From above, "Therefore, Christopher Greenwood is correct, when he states that according to the modern international justice, an attempt of the occupier to annect the territories does not change the legal status of the territory and its residents, and a military occupation justice will apply."
And again, why do we need to mix event and status in the article name? If we would have an article Annexation of the Baltic states, it would discuss event of the forceful incorporation of Baltic states into the Soviet Union (per Britannica: "a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition."). Is a significant portion of the current article dedicated to this? No. Is the act of annexation important in the article? Definitely, but not to the extent of including it to the title of the article. The article is about period 1940-1991, not focused on legality and consequences of the illegal annexation.
--Sander Säde 14:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Re why do we need to mix event and status in the article name? The current title mixes these things more than you think. "Occupied" means an event "A occupied B on date C" as well as status, "B remained occupied by A until date D". (Igny (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC))
Dear Jaan, your question was rhetoric, because the answer is obvious: yes the title Sander is pushing is a POV, not NPOV.
Dear Sander Säde, you seem to misinterpret Mälksoo's point. According to him, the Soviet rule had some traits of occupation, so despite the Baltic state were annexed the term "occupation" is nevertheless applicable to the period of the Soviet rule with some reservations. Mälksoo uses the term "occupation sui generis" to reflect the uniqueness of the Baltic states' case. Please, keep in mind also that the same author uses primarily the term "annexation" to describe the period of Soviet rule. Therefore I conclude your arguments (and the reversal you made) are baseless.
One way or the another, we need to finish that. I propose the following: to rename the article to something more neutral (e.g. "Occupation and annexation...") and to redirect "Occupation of the Baltic states" to there. The present situation, when more neutral title is redirected to the article with POV title is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that Mälksoo very clearly supports the occupation. Like all definitions state, annexation is an act of annexing - not continuous state of the territory. --Sander Säde 18:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No. In Russian version, the word "occupation" was placed in quotation marks (""Occupation" of the Baltic states?"). Although the Estonian version has no quotation marks (and I know nothing about the English version), the question mark is present both in Estonian and Russian translations. Mälksoo clearly supports the idea that, according to some criteria the Baltic states remained occupied, however, he clearly warns against oversimplifications. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved again

Please discuss instead of move-warring. (Igny (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

Vandalism reverted. Editor warned. --Sander Säde 18:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Igny. Please understand that you are breaking Wikipedia rules. In case of a contested move, the correct procedure is to achieve support for the suggested name in Requested Moves. Discussion happens before the move and not after. I see no difference between a random vandal and your behavior. --Sander Säde 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a page protection. Hopefully Igny will realize he has to follow rules same as everybody else. --Sander Säde 20:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sander Säde, the person violating the rules are you. The dispute where one side refuses to accept the other party's arguments is not a dispute. When a reasonable men join some discussion he obviously expect to convince others, however he always is prepared to be convinced (if the opponent's arguments appeared to be stronger). For example, during this discussion I changed my position: the sources and the arguments of other editors (including yours) forced me to concede that the period of Soviet rule had some traits of occupation, therefore this term cannot be fully omitted fron the article. By contrast, you appeared to be not ready to accept the arguments of others: you insist that only the term "occupation" should be used in the article's title and in the article itself, although a vast number of sources demonstrate unequivocally and persuasively that that is not correct. This behaviour is disruptive.
I thought you were a reasonable and sober editor, who takes the opponent's arguments seriously and who deserves his arguments to be taken equally seriously. Please, don't disappoint me.
With respect,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reopened request to move

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move There are good arguments on both sides, and in my view none have greater or lesser weight in regard to WP policies. The literature is not clearly on one side or the other around the definition or even existence of annexation, nor is the international community, judging by the arguments placed here. Splitting the article may be a sensible way forward. GedUK  07:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


Occupation of the Baltic states → Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states — The previous request to move (to a slightly different longer title) was closed prematurely in my opinion per all the arguments above in this talk page. I have reopened request to move to a much more adequate title (shortened to address the concern of clumsiness of the title), which is certainly more NPOV that the current one. (Igny (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

I see no reason to reiterate the same arguments: the last RM was closed recently and prematurely, so it would be sufficient to reexamine the editors opinions presented there. However, it is quite necessary to weight the arguments' strength, not just to count votes because a bare "oppose" (or "oppose" under a laughable pretext) means nothing. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the simple vote count is explicitly prohibited by the policy, so the RM's results are void.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for several reasons. Annexation is an act of forceful incorporation, while occupation is a status. As the article deals with the whole period of occupation 1940-1991, including the single event of annexation (forceful illegal incorporation) to the article name seems unprecedented and unnecessary. Furthermore, as we've seen, it is considered an occupation - all by historians, legal experts, scientists and courts. Article is currently very well balanced, discussing all viewpoints. Making the name longer serves no purpose that I can see whatsoever. --Sander Säde 07:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for a neutral title supported by the major scholarly works. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, legal or not, but the Baltic states were, at least a period 1944/1956-1991, part of the Soviet Union. Peltimikko (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The sources presented on this talk page demonstrate unequivocally and persuasively that the term "annexation" is widely used. Some sources explicitly state that the occupation of the Baltic states was not an occupation in a classical form.
    Moreover, at least one reliable source clearly states that it was not an occupation: David M. Edelstein in his article "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail" (International Security, Summer 2004, Vol. 29, No. 1, Pages 49-91) does not include the Baltic state's case into the comprehensive list of XX century occupations.
    The present title hardly "encourages multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing" so per WP:NPOV it must be changed, with or without consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose After reviewing the discussions for and against, in my view adding the term "annexation" makes the title less WP:NPOV. It makes it less POV because the international community never recognised the situation in the Baltics as an annexation. In fact the Soviet Union and now Russia also does not recognise that the Baltic states were annexed, they assert these countries freely joined the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in a way not that disimilar to countries joining the European Union today.
Under international law, occupation is considered to have ended upon the act of annexation, on the condition that the annexation is deemed legal or de jure via general international recognition. Obviously in the case of the Baltic states this did not happen. That act of annexation was never generally recognized as legal or de jure, therefore legally the territory remains in a state of occupation as if annexation never occurred. This is a basic principle of international law. Such territory is considered as remaining in a state of occupation even if the territory is governed through the civil rather than military laws of the state that has incorporated the occupied territory. This is affirmed by the British scholar David Smith when he states on page xi of the preface to his book: "In terms of international law the term ("former Soviet republic") is indeed a misnomer, for throught 1940-91, Estonia was deemed a de jure independent republic under illegal occupation by the USSR" and by Lauri Mälksoo when he states "Since the annexation of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union in 1940 occurred without any justification under international law and a significant part of the international community did not give the Soviet conquest a formal recognition, the USSR could not get a legal right of possession of the Baltic States, from which it follows automatically according to the international law, meaning that the occupation regime lasted until Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regained independence in 1991."
In conclusion, the current title is the most neutral, since nobody disputes that the Baltic states were subject to occupation at some point, while on one hand the Soviet Union/Russia assert they never annexed these states claiming they joined freely, and on the other hand the international community never recognised a de-jure act of annexation as having occured, i.e. these states never became de jure "annexed territory" but remained de jure "occupied territory". ISerovian (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC) — ISerovian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose I dont see any new arguments, which should convince expanding article's name at this time. I also would like to point about, that research into scholarly sources about term usage has great error counts, which has nothing to do with term usage in regards of Baltic question. M.K. (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to support the move, but I don't see how the new name is any more neutral (or even different) than the old one. The only neutral solution I can see is the one Hiberniantears tried to do once - limit this article's scope with 1940-1944 and move the rest (sections 5 through 8) to Baltic–Soviet relations. --Illythr (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


Discussion

  • This material may be useful. While it discuss Lithuania's law on occupation damage compensation it touches many aspects of this problem. Source: Baltic Yearbook of International Law, Vol 3, 2003 ISBN 9004137467. M.K. (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably a good idea as the Baltic states is a much wider used term than Baltic republics. I would keep the discussion on the relevant talk page, though. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To Sander Säde. Your argument is wrong. "Occupation" had some traits that were absent in the situation we discuss: no military administration, no separate status for the Baltic citizens. In addition, "annexation" may refer both to the act and to the state: although the "annexation" took place in 1940 (or 1944-45), the countries remained annexed (with some traits of "occupation") until 1991. More importantly, since the vast number of sources use the term "annexation" or "incorporation" (and some of them even do not mention occupation at all), omitting "annexation" would be a gross violation of NPOV. Since the Sander's opinion is in a direct contradiction with WP:NPOV, his vote cannot be counted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Paul, this is not voting. If you think an argument is wrong, then it is your opinion. Let the closing administration decide. Also, from the constitunional law dictionary, "Annexation: violent acquiring of an area, which belonged to another state." --Sander Säde 12:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the dictionary, I think this definition by no mean can serve as a support of your point: the annexation of the Baltic states was violent (unlawful), and, according to pre-1947 international laws annexation terminated occupation. The only things that do not allow us to remove the word "occupation" from the title (and to significantly decrease its usage in the main article) are (i) that the sources use the term "occupation" (in the Baltic states' context) very frequently (as frequent as the words "annexation" and "incorporation"), and (ii) that the annexation was treated as illegal by many western states, so the Soviet domination retained some traits of occupation.
One way or the another, since the question is not in replacement of the word "occupation" with the word "annexation", but in complementing the former with the latter (that is in absolute agreement with what majority sources state), I have absolutely no idea what your stubborn opposition is based on, and on how such a position conforms with the principles of neutrality and verifiability.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you are misinterpreting Mälksoo's argument. He is not saying it is an annexation with the charactestistcs of an occupation, but an occupation that never achieved full de jure annexation. ISerovian (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so. Firstly, according to Mälksoo, the period of the Soviet rule cannot be considered a pure occupation (he uses the term "occupation sui generis"). Moreover, he himself uses the term "annexation" very widely (including the book's title). Secondly, according to him and to other sources, majority of Western states did recognize the annexation de facto, and some (few) of them even de jure. Thirdly, had this case been so clear and indisputable, Mälksoo would have no reason to waste his time for writing so comprehensive monograph to meticulously and detaily dissect this issue. In actuality, the issue is very complicated and controversial: the major Mälksoo's conclusion is that, despite de facto and partially de jure cessation of the Baltic states' existence in 1940 (due to their annexation), we have a ground to speak about state continuity in this case, not about the states' re-creation. Fourthly, this talk page contains numerous evidences of extensive usage of the term "annexation" or "incorporation" by scholars writhing about the Baltic states. By no means these sources can be regarded as "marginal" or "fringe", so the burden of proof is sustained, and you cannot simply ignore this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kremlin's tag team in action again? There is no need to confuse this issue via Active measures D-department, there is only one country in the world that doesn't recognize it occupied anybody. Just that its covered in the article.--Termer (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

On the title, renaming the article Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states instead of Occupation of the Baltic states, sure why not. I don't see the difference actually. And since at least 2 annexations occurred during the period. One into the Soviet Union and another into the Nazi Germany, the longer title would be fine too. So if someone thinks this way longer title is way better than the current short one: I can give weak support to this move.--Termer (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To .--Termer. ::Re "One into the Soviet Union and another into the Nazi Germany". No. Germany didn't annex the Baltic states. It is more correct to state that they were the parts of the Reichskommissariat Ostland, so they fit criteria of colonies or protectorates (like Bohemia or General Government. BTW, the latter case provides a clear example of the difference between annexation and occupation: the western part of Poland was annexed directly to Germany, whereas the central part became a protectorate, so called "General Government" and had never been annexed).
Re Kremlin's tag team. If I were you I'd try to avoid this type statements. By doing that you've just demonstrated that you have no serious and rational arguments in this dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To M.K.. Re "I also would like to point about, that research into scholarly sources about term usage has great error counts" Correct. However, this game was initiated by the old title's proponents, not by me, I just made it in a more correct way (via google.scholar, not google). I agree that the number of mentions is not a good criterion, that is why I provided the sources that use, explicitly and solely, the term "annexation" and do not use the term "occupation". Moreover, at least one reliable source presented on this talk page (the David M. Edelstein's article in "International Security", Summer 2004, Vol. 29, No. 1, Pages 49-91) does not include the Baltic case into the comprehensive list of military occupations.
    You may not see new arguments, however you addressed neither new nor old arguments presented here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "limit this article's scope with 1940-1944 and move the rest (sections 5 through 8) to Baltic–Soviet relations". --Illythr (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    Relations between illegally annexed countries and the state they are annexed by? Reads impossible. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    The original title of that article, AFAIK, was "Baltic states and the Soviet Union". Also, the Baltic states themselves weren't annexed (and continued to exist as a group of diplomats with various degrees of recognition), their (whole) territories were. --Illythr (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    Actually a closer look on the 1945-1991 material shows that it is focused on the Baltic governments in exile and the illegal population transfers wherefore the proposed title would even suit the material. So I am ready to give the proposal a thought if it is the quickest way out of this naming battle. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    Considering the shitstorm that arose in the wake of that event - highly unlikely.
    On a side note, the definition of what a "Baltic state" is seems to be the crux of the dispute: for the pro-Baltic camp, the (1940-1941-) 1944-1991 states are the diplomats in exile, whose political entities were indeed occupied by a foreign force all that time. For the pro-Soviet camp, the states were the three SSRs, which is why they find the notion of the USSR occupying its own SSRs ludicrous. Similarly, for its government, the Mainland Area of the Republic of China is currently under Communist occupation. The idea that the People's Republic of China occupies its own territory is likewise ridiculous to the PRoC government. I'm rather pessimistic about finding a way to bring these two POVs together. --Illythr (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Re Illythr (but I don't see how the new name is any more neutral (or even different) than the old one. ) Baby steps. It is difficult to weed out nationalistic POV, especially so deep-rooted, in one sweep. Compromises are necessary sometimes. (Igny (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC))
I don't think it is needed to weed out a POV when it is deep-rooted. The fact that many Baltic (and some non-Baltic) authors consider a Soviet period as occupation is indisputable. This POV must be represented in the article. The only problem is that this POV should be presented as a POV, not as ultimate truth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The belligerents section

This is ridiculous. Which hostilities the US, US and Sweden participated in? BTW, Sweden recognized annexation of the Baltic states de jure. The Belligerents section should be removed from the infobox, because it is highly misleading.
Forest brothers were partisans, not civil resistance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: US, US and Sweden: just bother to click the wikilink. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No one argues that Western intelligences were involved in continuous program devoted to insert their agents into the USSR. However, it is insufficient to speak about these states as the belligerents (because no war took place in actuality). It was a part of the Cold war, and the latter was not a military conflict but a political opposition. Although some periods of the Baltic states' history can be described in the military conflict's terms, the attempt to represent the whole period of 1940-91 as a military conflict (by using the military infobox) is highly misleading, confusing and reflects some local POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to introduce a more appropriate infobox template. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried to remove the Belligerents and Casualties sections, but you reverted my changes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the Cold war does not use the military conflict infobox. It only has the nav box. (Igny (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC))
Occupation of Constantinople, which is mostly about the allied administration of the city, for example, uses the template without any issue. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Occupation of Constantinople was a classical post-war occupation. Majority of us agree that some of the events we are talking about were not an occupation in its classical form.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
For an annexation, template:infobox former country would be more suitable. Only two problems: would our nationalist friends agree, and it would take three of the infoboxes, one for each Soviet republic. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How about creating a new infobox about Soviet SSRs which shows pre-Soviet, under Soviet and post-Soviet parts of the history. Can we organize the template in such a way that it can handle groups of countries, such as Baltic, Slavic, Caucasus, and Middle Asia? (Igny (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

I don't see any usage of such infobox outside this article. Otherwise, a competent person on creating templates could do it (I don't have any idea how to create an infobox template). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


The infobox' scope is suffering from the same problem as the rest of the article, only in a more pronounced way: the scope is set to 1940-1991; the "Result" for this scope is invalid and should be "nothing," since the political status of the Baltic states in 1939 and 1992 was the same; Soviet losses are given for military operations against Germans during 1941-1944, whereas the "Baltic" losses are given for the entire period and are largely peacetime; as the last "belligerents" ceased to be such by 1955, the Soviet Union must have fought with itself since then, according to the infobox; Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin died sometime during the 1940-1991 period, perhaps add a † symbol to their names? --Illythr (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I am not saying this is the perfect type of infobox for a occupation and annexation of... article. I fully support either using another template (infobox former country) or creating a suitable one. While we have not done neither of the above, it should be noted that the current template can be and is used by occupation of... articles like Occupation of Constantinople, where no combat took place for most of the time span.
Re:As the last "belligerents" ceased to be such by 1955,—The last partisan died violently in 1978. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said in a post you deleted for some reason, occupation is a process of making a country "former", not the former country itself (process versus object). A military conflict template is the right solution, it just should be limited to the actual military operations in June 1940 and autumn 1944, as is done over there. --Illythr (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: The last partisan died violently in 1978. The last Imperial Japanese soldier surrendered in 1974. So? --Illythr (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about your post, I do not know how I managed to loose it.
The Oxford dictionary says, occupation is the action, state, or period of occupying or being occupied. For the action, military infobox is better, while for the state, former country is better. We have both in one article.
Re:The last Imperial Japanese soldier surrendered in 1974. The war between Japan and the Allies ended in 1945 while the Baltic partisan resistance did not. Commonly, 1978 is mentioned while talking about the end of the partisan movement. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, you have a point there. Still, AFAIK, occupied territories themselves are not considered a (former) country (example), the political entity set up by the occupier, is (example). However, that'd mean 4 infoboxes on one page (3 former countries, redundant with the three SSR articles, and one for the process), which is not pretty.
Commonly, the end of the partisan movement is described as the elimination of said movement as a cohesive fighting force and is dated with 1953 or so. Otherwise, the (say) Irish "partisan resistance" continues to this day. --Illythr (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: "The war between Japan and the Allies ended in 1945 while the Baltic partisan resistance did not." The war between Japan and the Allies ended in 1945 while resistance of the Baltic partisans even never started officially. The Baltic states were neutral during the WWII.
Re: "occupied territories themselves are not considered a (former) country ". To avoid reiteration of old arguments, please, re-read the discussion above (especially, this section [18]).
In addition, I have the following suggestion. Let's go back and try to remember what this article is supposed to tell about. In actuality, it tells about the history of the Baltic states during the WWII and the period of Soviet domination. Maybe, it would be better to rename the article (and to change the infobox) accordingly? Something like "Baltic states during WWII and Cold war"? Accordingly, the infobox can be split onto several subsections: 1940-41 (initial Soviet rule), 1941-44 (German occupation), 1945-55 (Stalinists' rule) and 1955-91 (late Soviet period). I believe it would be the only way to create not-confusing infobox, because the present casualties' numbers resemble the "average patients' temperature in the hospital"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please get rid of this infobox. I've deleted it once but this nonsense seems to be very sticky. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:better to rename the article (and to change the infobox) accordingly?—Renamings do not appear to be gaining enough consensus here, although I would support any reasonable solution that would get us out of this mess. And the infobox is not the cause. If anything, it is its reflection. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive

Below is an extended quote from the David M. Edelstein's article "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail" (International Security, Summer 2004, Vol. 29, No. 1, Pages 49-91. doi:10.1162/0162288041762913, MIT press)

"The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state’s homeland. Colonialism may end at some point, but this intention may not be clear at the onset of a colonial mission. Although colonial powers may insist that they are on a civilizng mission to foster the eventual independence of a colonized territory, they are frequently willing to stay indeanitely to achieve these goals. This distinction is what makes successful occupation so difficult: in an occupation, both sides—the occupying power and the occupied population—feel pressure to end an occupation quickly, but creating enough stability for the occupation to end is a great challenge. Occupations are also distinct from short-term interventions in which the occupying power exerts little political control over the territory in which it has intervened."

In other words, the source provided by me outlines several important distinctive features between occupation, colonialism and annexation, that make them mutually exclusive. I believe I sustained my burden of evidence, so the article should be changed to conform to the sources and to the common sense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Finally a source, I only had to ask about half a dozen times. Not sure why there is a separate section for it, but oh well. We can exclude the loopholes of occupation becoming annexation only if it is de jure recognized by other countries (recognition of annexation didn't happen in case of Baltic states) - and annexation being only a permanent loss of independence (obviously, Soviet Union intended it as permanent, but thankfully didn't happen), as apparently this particular author doesn't recognize those (well, I don't have access to said article, so I cannot be sure). Now we have to find a source tying this theory to Baltic states - do I have to ask for that as well five more times?
In hopes that you will find such source, a of citation for you:
--Sander Säde 09:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: Finally a source, I only had to ask about half a dozen times. Please familiarize yourself with WP:DEADLINE. (Igny (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
Which, by the way, is an essay and not a guideline. View four also explains why there is a deadline. --Sander Säde 11:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter if it's a guideline or an essay, it does not matter what view 4 is, what matters here is what view is Paul's. (Igny (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
That does not make any sense whatsoever. Paul's views are somehow extraordinary compared to others? --Sander Säde 11:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: "and annexation being only a permanent loss of independence" Not so simple. Colonialism is also a permanent loss of independence. The difference between annexation and occupation is of two kinds: firstly, occupation is a temporary presence of the hostile army on the opponent's territory; secondly, during occupation the local population is being treated as foreign. (Frankly, I found that, according to Fourth Geneva Convention any annexation of occupied territories is illegal, so we cannot speak about legality of the annexation of the Baltic States at all, had it taken place after 1948. Look, I do not hide the facts that can help you to gain points in our dispute.)
However, the issue is somewhat different. Illegal annexation is not an occupation, because these two differ in the way the local population is treated. The fact that most countries (except, probably, Australia and some others) never recognized the annexation as legal, and that the USSR later also condemned the annexation, does not cancel the fact that during whole Soviet period the local population of the Baltic states had the same rights as other Soviet citizens did, and that the Baltic republics were de jure and de facto full members of the USSR. Under no circumstances these facts fit "occupation" criteria.
The case of the Baltic states is controversial, and, accordingly, should be treated as such. Namely, that the Baltic states were forcibly annexed, that that annexation was never recognized as legal by majority western powers, and that, according to the Baltic sources, and many Western ones, that was an occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I read the Fourth Geneva Convention some time ago and figured it doesn't apply to the current conversation, as it was formed in 1948 - and Soviet Union ratified it in 1960, if I remember correctly. I do not think that anyone thinks the annexation was legal - although, as I was searching for a source, I happened to visit Russian English web forum and the opinions there were scary (in style "You balts had nothing but empty land before we came and brought you culture and freedom", "Latvians were treated as subhuman by Hitler and he was right, we should just have sent you all to Siberia", "Balticum is a Russian land and always will be. We'll just let you live there for a while - but the reckoning day is coming"). Pages and pages of it. I did not realize such hatred exists in Russia in such extent, and those were the English-speaking people with access to different opinions and free media. It actually made me wish I hadn't changed my Wikipedia username to my real name (and sorry about getting sidetracked here). --Sander Säde 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: "I did not realize such hatred exists in Russia in such extent" Each forum has its own audience, so I believe that particular forum reflects the opinion of only a minor part of Russians. Similarly, many forums are plagued with nationalistic bullshit, and that doesn't necessarily reflects the point of view of the whole nation. I personally think majority of Russians simply are not interested/unaware of the Baltic issues.
With regards to sources, which type of source were your looking for?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I wanted just to see if the same David M. Edelstein's article "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail" is somewhere available on the net - after I left the university, I have no easy access to most publications. I think partial sentence from the quote was a (false) match in the forum.
And yes - all social and ethnic groups have their fair share of misfits, morons and hate-mongers, it was just the blind hatred apparently shared by so many that put me off. I have read occasionally Pravda.ru English forums before - also somewhat similar tone, but not quite that direct in their posts (might be because Pravda forums are moderated) and quite often there is an opposition to their views, trying to explain and point to other sources and views. But this was just page after page of "Estonians are Nazis".
--Sander Säde 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Re: "those were the English-speaking people with access to different opinions and free media" The editors from the Baltic states also have access to free media, however not all of them are free from strong nationalistic POV. Note, I do not blame everyone, moreover, the editors working on this and similar articles are much more educated, reasonable, polite and tolerant than those from, e.g. Holodomor article, however...
In addition, although I do not constantly monitor how Russian mass-media represent the Baltic states, imo, the bursts of anti-Baltic hysteria in Russia usually coincide with some events like ex-WaffenSS marches, thereby making a hypothesis of some casual linkage very plausible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Re Pravda.ru. There are three things that one must clearly distinguish: official Russian propaganda, various web-resources and public opinion. These three may differ dramatically. I personally follow the prof. Preobrazhenski's advice and do not read Soviet newspapers before lunch, and I don't see how such a marginal web resource as pravda.ru can be helpful for you.
Re David M. Edelstein's article. He tells nothing specifically about the Baltic states. He mentions Soviet occupation in the following footnote (I reproduce it in full:
"As always, there are some borderline cases. For example, I include the U.S. occupation of the Philippines, though the presence of the United States in the Philippines might be considered colonialism by some. U.S. leaders intensely debated whether or not to annex the Philippines after the Spanish-American War of 1898. Following the conoict with Filipino insurgents shortly after the occupation began, the United States became increasingly reluctant to stay in the Philippines. By 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt observed, “The Philippine Islands form our heel of Achilles.” Quoted in E. Berkeley Tompkins, Anti-Imperialism in the United States: The Great Debate, 1890–1920 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970). On the other hand, I have excluded the French mandates in Syria and Lebanon immediately after World War I. In these cases, the evidence suggests that the French viewed their presence in the Middle East as more permanent than temporary. Summarizing the League of Nations mandates in the Middle East, David Fromkin concludes, “But France, in particular, regarded the pledge of independence as window-dressing, and approached Syria and Lebanon in an annexationist spirit.” Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (New York: Henry Holt, 1989), p. 411. I also have excluded the cases of the Soviet Union in Central and Eastern Europe after World War II. In these cases, the Soviet Union retained a considerable amount of control over the states of the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. If one were to code these cases as occupations, it would be difficult to identify when, aside from 1989, these occupations ended."
He tells nothing about the Baltic states, and this events is not listed as occupation in his final table "Appendix 1. Military Occupations, 1815–2003".
Anyway, the more I read on the subject the more I realize that majority of scholars writing about the Baltic states do not care about precise wording, so my formula (see above "illegal annexation that is considered occupation by many sources")) seems to be the most adequate (and neutral) reflection of what various sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Estonians are Nazis" Frankly, although I do not share this point of view, the way the articles like the Battle of Narva are being edited suggests that the editors who do that believe the co-belligerence of the Estonians and the Germans was a glorious page of Estonian history... --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Not commenting in any way on the "glorious page", but there is one Estonian editor whose edits I am forced to monitor and occasionally revert. I must say I wish he wouldn't edit Wikipedia. --Sander Säde 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ru:аннексия has a link to russian translation of Мялксоо Л. Советская аннексия и государственный континуитет: международно-правовой статус Эстонии, Латвии и Литвы в 1940—1991 гг. и после 1991 г. — Tartu, Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 2005. On pages 205- occupation is compared to the annexation. It may also be helpful to read the references provided in that article. For example, does anyone have access to Roberts. What Is a Military Occupation? // BYIL, 1984? (ru:Присоединение Прибалтики к СССР and references there are also an interesting to read, note for example, use of the word annexation on p. 8 of Conclusions // Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity) (Igny (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Thank you, Igny, that is a very interesting text - and also first in-depth analysis I've seen of this case. I was only able to find Estonian version of the book (p 177?) and don't have time right now to analyze what he wrote. I am going to read the whole book this weekend, if possible. --Sander Säde 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Both Edelstein (see the above quote) and Malksoo stress the importance of the occupying party's actions. If the occupant views its presence as permanent ("In these cases, the evidence suggests that the French viewed their presence in the Middle East as more permanent than temporary" Edelstein; "military occupation ends after legal incorporation of the territory of the occupied state"(Malksoo, page 42)) we cannot speak about military occupation. Moreover, Malksoo clearly speaks about "illegal aggression, occupation and subsequent annexation" of the Baltic states:
"Поскольку советская агрессия нарушила действующие дву- и многосторонние договоры между этими странами, то оккупация Красной Армией Эстонии, Латвии и Литвы 17 июня 1940 года, последовавшее за этим установление коммунистического режима и аннексия стран Балтии Советским Союзом в августе 1940 года должны расцениваться как незаконные акты и, следовательно, юридически недействительны ab initio." (p. 74)
"Kuna nõukogude agressioon rikkus nende riikide vahel kehtivaid kahe- ja mitmepoolseid leppeid, tuleb Eesti, Läti ja Leedu okupeerimist punaarmee poolt 17. juunil 1940, sellele järgnenud kommunistide võimuleaitamist ning Balti riikide annekteerimist Nõukogude Liidu poolt augustis 1940 pidada õigusvastasteks tegudeks ning seega ab initio õigustühisteks."(p. 68)
Although these sources confirm my point of view (occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive), upon reading various sources I realized that the issue is really complex, and that no common opinion exists on that account. Therefore, I believe it would be more correct to say that the Baltic states were forcibly annexed, and, according to many sources this is considered occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think more interesting and relevant is the conclusion of the occupation and annexation chapter.
Also, the same p. 68 Paul cited, concludes "Therefore Soviet Union never had a sovereign control (probably bad translation) over Baltic states and remained only occupier, until de jure existing independence of Baltic states was restored in 1991 de facto as well." ("Seetõttu ei saanud Nõukogude Liit kunagi suveräänset valdusõigust Balti riikide üle ning jäi nõnda üksnes okupeerivaks riigiks, kuni Balti riikide de iure olemas olnud iseseisvus aastal 1991 ka de facto taastati.")
--Sander Säde 09:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive? Wikipedia is not a place for such debates. So please stop it.--Termer (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Care to cite the policy which we are violating here? Some big "not a place for such debates" rule, which I somehow missed? Thanks for giving polite orders though. (Igny (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
Please see the very top of this talk page. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sander Säde, please, keep in mind that the quote provided by you was taken from the paragraph which starts with the words
"Balti riikide seisukoha järgi pani Nõukogude Liit 1940. a juunis Eesti, Läti ja Leedu vabariikide vastu toime agressiooniaktid.", or
"Согласно выдвинутой странами Балтии точке зрения, в 1940 году Советский Союз совершил акты агрессии против Эстонской, Латвийской и Литовской Республик."
("According to the Baltic states' point of view ...")
Therefore, the words quoted by you reflects the Baltic point of view and should be presented as such. That is in full accordance with my previous edits made to the lede, as well as with what the ref #5 in the main article tells.
Moreover, the footnote #3 (Malksoo) states:
"Enn Sarv on väitnud, et termini “dissidentlus” kasutamine Balti juhtumi puhul pole kohane, sest isikud, kes võitlevad vabaduse eest okupeeritud riigis, ei võitle “oma” riigis valitseva režiimi vastu ning seega ei saa neid nimetada “dissidentideks” ehk “teisitimõtlejateks”. Vt E. Sarv, Õiguse vastu ei saa ükski, Tartu, 1997, lk 75. Semantiline dilemma “dissidendi” ja “vabadusvõitleja (või vastupanuvõitleja)” vahel iseloomustab raskusi, mis tekivad õigusvastaselt tekitatud ja pikaajalise perioodi, nagu Nõukogude võim Balti riikides seda oli, adekvaatsel kirjeldamisel."
In other words, the illegal situation created during the prolonged period of the Soviet domination is really hard to characterize by single simple definition. Note, the other parts of the book use the term "occupation" (in the Baltic context) very infrequently. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
At least in the Estonian version it is clear that after the first sentence, it is author's text discussing the legal consequences if 1940 events were an illegal aggression. I tried to find an English version, but it seems Mälksoo uses Russian and Estonian version in his courses, but English version is only available commercially. --Sander Säde 09:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't get your point. My impression form the Mälksoo's book is that he does not discuss the "occupation vs annexation" issue. The major subject he discusses is a phenomenon of state continuity after so long period of the loss of independence by the Baltic states. He concludes that one of the major reasons that allow us to speak about continuity, not re-creation, is the illegal nature of the 1940 annexation, that was a result of the Soviet aggression. (Interestingly, he notes that, although these events cannot be unequivocally described as an aggression based on those times' international laws, they were an aggression according to the treaties signed between the Baltic states and the USSR; these treaties were much more liberal and progressive than in the rest of the world.) One way or the another, Mälksoo prefers to discuss the legal bases for the Baltic states' continuity after illegal Soviet annexation, not occupation, although he didn't state clearly that the occupation ended after these states were annexed.
Again, after reading more on the subject I realized that different scholars use different terminology, and sometimes simply do not care about precise wording. In addition, the situation with the Baltic states is too unusual to characterize it in simple legal terms. Nevertheless, the terms "illegal annexation" or "forcible incorporation" are used more frequently in the sources that pay a due attention do the analysis of the subject. Therefore the formula "illegal annexation, which is seen as occupation by Baltic and some Western sources" seems to be the most neutral and adequate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Naturally Mälksoo's does not discuss the "occupation vs annexation" issue since there is no "occupation vs annexation" issue. Like already pointed out, also Mälksoo refers to "Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940" (chapter 3 p. 96) and to "Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)" (Chapter 4, p 169). This article is about "Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)" not about "Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940". This has been pointed out about 4 times by now. In case you like the subject of "Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940" why don't you start up an article about it.--Termer (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. And Malksoo is also very clear about how the illegal annexation and occupation are connected to eachother: using the aid of google translate it says on page 192

.--Termer (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only does he discuss this issue in detail, he raises a number of questions such as
So please stop saying nonsense and cherry pick terms used in the paper. With regard to a new article with a different title, one of these articles would become a WP:POVFORK of the other. This issue can not be resolved by creating two articles on the same subject. (Igny (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
Sorry Igny my Greek is kind of rusty, so perhaps you'd like to use the language of the English wikipedia to make yourself understandable?--Termer (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Anybody who takes time to open the book can see that you have accused me wrongly of "cherry pick terms used in the paper" But that "Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940" (chapter 3 p. 96) and "Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)" are 2 separate chapters in the book ISBN 9041121773, and thanks to Paul for providing the full version of the book that's available online.--Termer (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't apologize for your Greek illiteracy. Now I can see however the source of your misunderstandings of the sources. It suffices for you to read what I said in plain English here. The quote was not necessary, I just provided for everyone with knowledge of Russian or Estonian (see the link to the Estonian translation above) that you do not know what Malksoo is talking about. (Igny (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
Sorry Igny, me as a wikipedia editor doesn't need to know what Malksoo is talking about. The only thing I need to know here, since malksoo separates the soviet annexation in 1940 and occupation (1940-1991) into 2 separate chapters there is no any reason to WP:SYNTHesize those together on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Re: "Naturally Mälksoo's does not discuss the "occupation vs annexation" issue since there is no "occupation vs annexation" issue." He devoted the whole chapter(a chapter 4: "Occupation" of the Baltic countries (1940-1991); please, note that the word occupation is placed in quotation marks.). I fully agree with Sander Säde who characterized this book as the most comprehensive analysis of the issue. BTW I also fully agree with Mälksoo's, who concluded that the annexation of the Baltic states, due to its illegality, retained some features of occupation, and therefore was the occupation sui generis. However, the primary term used by him to describe the period of the Soviet domination is "annexation", not "occupation", and the article must be modified to reflect this fact.
Let me also point out that per WP:V "the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Mälksoo's book presents a comprehensive analysis of the issue, so the priority should be given to this and similar sources, not to numerous books where the subject has been mentioned only briefly and tangentially.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: ""Soviet occupation and annexation of Baltic states in 1940" (chapter 3 p. 96) and "Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)"" Firstly, please, don't limit yourself with reading the chapters' titles. The first chapter you mention discusses the "process" of occupation in 1940, so it has no relation to our discussion. The second title has been quoted incorrectly: it reality it is "Occupation" of Baltic states (1940–1991) (note the quotation marks). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I actually do look at the sources and there are no quotation marks on the word occupation in chapter title 4 p 169 'Occupation of Baltic states (1940–1991)' that ends with a conclusion already pointed out:

So thanks again for providing the source!--Termer (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, read the whole chapter, especially the author's conclusions on the "occupation sui generis" and "Annexionsbesetzung", as well as the conclusion that that period cannot be considered as legally void. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The details do not change the bottom line. In case you're into it, feel free to add any relevant details to the article.--Termer (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the details do not change the bottom line. The question remains, however, what that bottom line is. Mälksoo's writes primarily about the consequences of annexation, he, as well as other authors he cites put "occupation" in quotation marks ("occupation sui generis"). Therefore, it is quite incorrect that the article uses mostly the term "occupation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line is that although Mälksoo occasionally uses the single term occupation to denote the Soviet period, he generally uses a combination of the terms occupation and annexation for that purpose. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, not. Mälksoo generally uses the term "annexation", not "occupation" (even in the book's title). He speaks about "unlawful annexation", and sometimes put the word "occupation" in quotation marks, implying that, although Soviet domination had some signs of occupation it was not an occupation in its classical form ("occupation sui generis"). Therefore, the primary term to describe the whole period of Soviet domination should be "annexation", not "occupation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That one was just an outright lie. Mälksoo uses the terms "annexation", and "occupation" in different contexts, this has been pointed out about 10 times by now: according to malksoo illegal annexation occurred in August 1940 that's covered in chapter 3; occupation lasted (1940-1990) covered with chapter 4. In any case Annexation - the de jure incorporation of some territory into another can only refer to an event when an annexation happened, again legal or not, something that in the context occurred only in August 1940. You can't nor does Malksoo speak about "the whole period of Soviet domination as an annexation" meaning "The annexation of Baltic states 1940-1990"; instead Malksoo has a chapter on Occupation of Baltic states (1940-1990), without any quotation marks, and that's what this article is about. Please, feel free to get the book and read it, it should be available in your nearby library--Termer (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Re That one was just an outright lie. That was an outright insult. Care to retract? I can see the problem as a matter of interpretation of the sources, but in any case insulting your opponents is not the right way to debate. (Igny (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
(edit conflict)Re: "according to malksoo illegal annexation occurred in August 1940 that's covered in chapter 3; occupation lasted (1940-1990) covered with chapter 4. " Rather funny interpretation. Firstly, in the chapter 3 Mälksoo discusses legality of both occupation and annexation, concludes that both of them were illegal. Secondly, the chapter 4 is devoted to the discussion if the period of Soviet domination can be considered as "occupation". Note the question marks in the chapter's title and quotation marks in the Russian version. (Balti riikide okupatsioon (1940–1991)? and “Оккупация” стран Балтии (1940–1991 гг.)?) He points out that many western authors also put the word "occupation" in quotation marks, and he himself describes the situation as "occupation sui generis".
Below are some quotes demonstrating my point. I have no English version of his book, so taking into account that you do not understand Russian ("Greek", as you dubbed it; BTW, what did you mean by comparing Russian with Greek? That both these languages are ancient and that they both are the integral parts of world culture?), I give the quotes from the Estonian version:
"Seega on reaktsioonid väitele, et Balti riigid olid aastatel 1940–1991 sõjalise okupatsiooni all, olnud õiguskirjanduses mõnevõrra ettevaatlikud. Tihtipeale püüavad Balti riikide tolleaegsest staatusest kirjutavad autorid ennast distantseerida okupatsiooni teooriast sel teel, et asetavad viited okupatsioonile jutumärkidesse (Nõukogude “okupatsioon”). Lisaks on Vene autorid jõuliselt eitanud Balti riikide okupatsiooni teooriat. Stanislav Tšernitšenko on rõhutanud: “Aga terminit ‘okupatsioon’ ei saa kasutada selle olukorra puhul, mis kujunes Balti riikides pärast nende liitumist NSV Liiduga, isegi kui tunnistada, et nad ühendati NSV Liiduga sunniviisiliselt (annekteeriti selle poolt). Erandiks on ainult Saksa okupatsiooni periood.”"
"Kas “okupatsiooni” kontseptsiooni kasutamine on Balti riikide nõukogude perioodi puhul korrektne või mitte? Millised järeldused tuleneks sellest, kui öelda, et Balti riigid olid aastatel 1940–1991 okupeeritud, eriti kui arvestada, et need riigid annekteeriti Nõukogude Liidu poolt 1940. aasta augustis? Esmajoones tekitab see küsimuse, kas anneksioon, olgugi õigusvastane, välistab õiguslikus mõttes okupatsiooni."
Note, the last sentence ("first of all, the question emerges if annexation terminates the state of occupation") is a direct repercussion of this (talk page) section's title.
Three last paragraphs of the chapter 4 tell that:
"Balti riikide olukorraga seotud faktid sunnivad tegema järeldust, et väide, nagu oleks Balti riigid aastatel 1940–1991 edasi eksisteerinud, sisaldab teatud õigusliku fiktsiooni elementi. Mõned riigid, mis ei andnud NSV Liidu vallutusele de iure tunnustust, ei olnud samas ka eriti sõnakad oma mittetunnustamise rõhutamisel. On vaieldav, mil määral sellised “kõhklevad” riigid seostasid oma mittetunnustamist teesiga, et Balti riigid kestavad õigussubjektina edasi. Teatud määral nõustusid need riigid sellise jätkuva eksistentsi fiktsiooniga tagantjärele, ex post."
(Note the words on "fiction of state's continuity revived ex post")
"Ometi ei viita viimaste aegade riikide praktika üldjuhul, et Balti riikide samasust tunnustanud riigid oleks mõtelnud vastuolulisele ja poliitikast ajendatud seosele “samasus ilma järjepidevuseta”. Balti riikide väide on alati rõhutanud riikide järjepidevust, ning kolmandad riigid, mis on tunnustanud Balti riikide samasuse ideed, on nähtavasti tunnustanud ka Balti riikide väidet pikaajalisest nõukogude okupatsioonist.
Nõukogude okupatsiooni ja anneksiooni õigusvastasus, nõukogude anneksiooni mittetunnustamine lääneriikide poolt, Balti rahvaste vastupanu nõukogude režiimile ning riigiorganite jäänuste katkematu eksistents eksiilis sunnivad langetama lõpliku otsuse, et Balti riikide järjepidevus kestis läbi kogu nõukogude anneksiooniperioodi. Lääneriikide mittetunnustamine üksnes rõhutas selle anneksiooni õigusvastasust. Selle õigusvastasuse tõttu, mida kinnitas mittetunnustamine, ei omandanud NSV Liit ka suveräänõiguseid. Kui just ei väideta, et Balti riikidest sai terrae nullius, mis oleks ilmselgelt absurdne, siis jäi nende riikide suveräänne valdusõigus õigusvastaselt okupeeritud Balti riikide eksiilorganite kätte."
Note, although Mälksoo does use the term "occupation" (although with some reservations: "Vaatamata anneksiooni faktile, jäi NSV Liidu kohalolu Balti riikides rahvusvahelise õiguse järgi okupatsiooniks sui generis kuni nende riikide iseseisvuse taastamiseni.") somewhere else, the only term he uses in the concluding chapter's paragraphs is "annexation".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. I (as well as other editors) will appreciate if you Termer used the colon character correctly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
More outright lies and misrepresentations of sources above. I don't mind citing the bottom line by Malksoo on the question of illegal annexation and occupation as many times as needed:

Malksoo raises the question on p 172:

and gives an answer on page p191-192

and a conclusion on p. 193

So Malksoo theoretical approach concludes that it was a form of occupation sui generis. So do you want to rename this article Occupation sui generis of the Baltic states because of it? I don't think so. Common name Occupation of Baltic states is just fine.--Termer (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. It's not the first time on Wikipedia Paul misreads the sources and turns it into something compleatly different. Like for example Paul claiming once that "the Baltic states had a major impact on the outbreak of WWII" at the time when the source said "it is possible that the Baltics had an impact..." [19]. Please be more careful Paul not publishing Original Ideas on wikipedia, also on talk pages, this has been a problem and continues to be so thus far. Please at least try to follow more carefully where the current author uses quotation marks, where not and why. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure if I misread the sources, however, I am sure you do not read my posts. The Malksoo's point on the "occupation sui generis" has been reiterated by me several times on this talk page, so I simply cannot understand what new facts your post is supposed to present.
Secondly, since I already have a Russian version of the book, I see no reason to try to get an access to the English version. Therefore, to avoid accusations in incorrect translation back to English, I would like you just to post the whole paragraph you quoted so selectively (p. 191-192). I believe the full quote will clearly demonstrate who takes the words out of a context.
Obviously "occupation sui generis" is not an occupation in its classical form; that is why Malksoo speaks about a "prolonged period of annexation" (sic!) almost everywhere in his book. He argues that the Baltic case is very complicated and cannot be interpreted in simple terms. Moreover, the case of the Baltic states is an important precedent that may lead to modification of the norms of the international law. All said above demonstrates that your point of view is a superficial interpretation of what serious sources say.
I believe you fully realize that your position is flawed: you insist on using the term "occupation" and you refuse to admit that the "annexation" (although, according to most contemporary sources, unlawful) is a better (although not fully adequate) term to describe these events. By contrast, I insist that, according to reputable sources, the period of Soviet domination was unlawful annexation that had some traits of occupation. Obviously, my position is closer both to what the sources say and to what WP calls NPOV, and you perfectly understand that. That is why you are trying to insult me. As I already wrote, I am absolutely tolerant to such insults, I am not going to report to any noticeboard, moreover, if somebody else will try to report on your behaviour, I will oppose to any sanctions. However, I beg you to keep in mind that by insulting me you make your own position weaker, and you discredit the point of view you are trying to defend. I don't think that is what you want to achieve.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Did you know that "the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina was the annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina by Soviet Union in 1940"? Such is the opening statement of this article. I have just found out that (through Illythr's contribs). (Igny (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

RE Paul: That is why you are trying to insult me? This kind of claim wouldn't have made sense to me some time ago but I recently read how a Finnish Moscow correpondent, a journalist explained it: nowadays any mentioning of Soviet era crimes is a personal insult to Russian national pride. This kind of statement explained a lot. This whole article must be a personal insult for those who in their own mind liberated an half of Europe but now need to face the fact that they just replaced one oppressing occupation with another. And that also explains the Soviet style POV pushing on this article. This is English wikipedia, based on facts published by secondary sources in the English speaking world. the Kremlins POV as a minority viewpoint has been represented in the article and there is no need to go any further. Other than that, feel free to request a move and call the article according to Malksoo Occupation sui generis of the Baltic states if you like.--Termer (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mälksoo mostly uses the term occupation and illegal annexation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_7&oldid=1089784080"