Talk:German occupation of the Baltic states during World War II

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. By the time of the Nazi invasion (1941), Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania having been overrun by the USSR in 1940 were annexed and attached to the country as Soviet republics. This is what Nazis occupied. Naming the entities, one can say Nazi occupation of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. If some wants to bundle up these separate occupation for whatever reason, one should use the correct term. --Irpen 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were overrun by Nazis as well and incorporated into Ostland. So in case Nazis occupied Soviet Republics in 1940, it would be fair to say: did the Soviets occupy Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, meaning Nazi Ostland in 1944? The fact is during the Soviet and Nazi occupations existed the legal bodies of Baltic states as well until the restoration of independences in 1991. Therefore, sure the Soviets had their claims to these territories, so did the Nazis and so did the Sovereign Baltic states that had their diplomatic missions still active in London and New York. Why exactly is the Soviet claim the most superior and important in your opinion Irpen is something that I'm missing here. --98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Otherwise I really wouldn't prefer one version to another but from the explanations given here I understand that the main reason for using Baltic republics here is to present Soviet POV. If Soviet Union occupied Estonia etc then Nazi Germany also occupied Estonia etc and not Soviet Union, one replaced another. Besides, Baltic states is a perfectly neutral frase to bundle up the countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. As the list below proves it is also preferred in the literature. Oth (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I think I caused all the fuss when I moved it couple months back. I did this to be consistent with the main article on the Baltic states. I take phrase to be more of geographical than political issue. Renata (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I should also probably clarify that I don't particularly care -- certainly not enough to edit war about it. I just though it would be a good idea to be consistent and it never occurred to me that it would be something controversial. Renata (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  The region had different periods in its history. Once there were Baltic states and other time there were the republics. If to be consistent with other articles, why we should keep consistent only with Baltic states and not with Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Estonian SSR for example?--Dojarca (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Should be "Baltic states". Irpen, we already argued this long ago. You steal my land. Then Renata3 comes and steals my land. Renata3 did not come and steal YOUR land. Ergo, the Baltics were not occupied Soviet republics, which is what the use of "republic" indicates. The Nazi occupation was another occupation of the Baltic states by another party. Why are we dredging up ancient spats? I would have thought membership in a conflict resolution working group would have broadened your perspective. Apparently not. —PētersV (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I’d support a change of title to Baltic States. It’s more a more neutral phrase; Republic either implies Soviet Republic, or independent Republic, either of which will offend someone: Either way it's not NPOV. It would also be consistent with other usage on WP. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PS In reference to this discussion; I’m more bothered by the article itself. (see "Improvement needed" below). Xyl 54 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• "state" anyway implies independent country. It is not a case like in the Unites States where states are constituent parts of the country.--Dojarca (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - hey, even the 1936 Soviet Constitution (art. 15) says that "each Union Republic exercises state authority independently". Seriously, though: "Baltic states" is the common, neutral, geographic term and has been for about 90 years, regardless of whether they happened to be under occupation at a particular point. Plus, while in (say) 1975 the occupation was pretty stable and not about to go away any time soon (or so it seemed), the situation in 1941 was very much in flux and it seems rather pedantic to call them "states" one day and "republics" the next, particularly as not one of those states agreed to disappear, in contrast to what the occupying power was claiming. Biruitorul (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Internationally reckognised states that were occupied by Soviet Union. The fact that Soviet Union used term republics is known but should be mentioned in the text not as lead, which could be seen as accepting Soviet POV.--Molobo (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The only reason to move is to push the contemporary Baltic POV and anti-Soviet poropaganda. The states did not exist at the moment the German invasion began. Moving them to the "baltic states" position clearly violates the neutrality rules. Anyway the arguments are invalid as shown below in Irpen's response. Also the proposed title is not more neutral than existing. The name Baltic states clearly implies state independence and used only by anti-Soviet and revisionist political forces when speaking of the period of WWII (although it is legitimate term for the now independent states). We have articles on Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR and Estonian SSR and everybody can check when they were established. --Dojarca (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose nothing wrong with "republics" (could refer to independent states or SSRs), whereas "states" brings in potential POV issues about political status that don't need to be brought it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The word "republic" is more informative. "States" will raise neutrality questions, since the indepedence status of these republics at that time is disputed. If necessary we could move the article to Occupation of the Baltic region by Nazi Germany. Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you explain what you mean by informative? "Republic" in the advocated context (Baltics were SSRs and not occupied) is no more neutral than "States." Thank you. —PētersV (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Dojarca, please avoid votestacking. It seems that you have invited Alex Bakharev expecting an additional opposing vote. Bakharev has never edited this article, but you are aware of his pro-Russian bias.

Or, if you do vote-stack, please do so by e-mail in order to avoid being caught red-handed. Biruitorul (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Sadly ... very sensible advice, though as you know email canvassing doesn't always work out. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If done with someone one knows and trusts, the results can be very beneficial indeed; at worst no action will be taken either way. If done randomly, one may chance upon a vicious character with nary a shred of humanity left in him, and of course it's the latter who must be guarded against. Biruitorul (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There were Baltic states before World War II. In the course of the war they were initially occupied by Soviets. These are the facts. Should we use prewar names, or temporary names which were assigned during the war, or afterwar names? The most neutral way would be using geographic names, naming this article as "Occupation of the Baltics by Nazi Germany". In fact the initial title of this article was Nazi occupation of the Baltics. --Greggerr (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Occupation of the Baltics by Nazi Germany" should keep everyone happy, no? —PētersV (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with this. Will it be acceptable with those pushing their fringe POV is another question. Martintg (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fringe POVer here. ;) When did "Baltic" become a noun that could be pluralized? Unless this has happened, "Occupation of the Baltics" is just bad English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please type "the Baltics" in Google, or in Google Books before accusing somebody else of bad English. You seem to be not familiar with the region. --Greggerr (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it is used, and can even be found in the respectable googles. But it still sounds like bad English to me, Baltic being primarily an adjective. Sounds like Occupation of the Meditteraneans.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

English not your first language? "The Baltics" is a common idiom in english. Martintg (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And I love you too, Martin. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it a reasonable question, seems that those with the most difficulty understanding WP:COMMONNAME appear to be from non-english speaking backgrounds. Were you or your parents from the former Soviet Union? Martintg (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The NYT has used "the Baltics" over 600 times in the last couple of decades. For those who would make hay out of "states" (as if there aren't more pressing matters to attend to), this seems a fine solution. Biruitorul (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for one by constitution of both the interbellum and Soviet governments, officially the three countries were republics. Thus I see no reason why the title is not informative. One could choose a better wording such as the Nazi Occupation of the Baltics, but the present title is IMO ok. --Kuban Cossack 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of WP:COMMONNAME is that articles should follow names in common usage, rather than what may be academically correct. Martintg (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support At the time of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states no one recognized them as republics. In the eyes of the world they were and remained Baltic states. I understand this is the prevailing usage in the historiographic literature, so the move will make sense. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  Please support your claim that this is prevailing usage in historiographic literatire with sources.--Dojarca (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Biruitorul has provided conclusive evidence from historical sources here [1]. This is confirmed by a search of Time Magazine, where for the period between from June 1, 1941 to September 22, 1944, "Baltic states" has 40 references[2], and "Baltic republics" only has 2 references[3], both being quotes of Soviet officials. Martintg (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• This only shows the position of The New York Times' editorial staff, nothing more. The claim was about thw whole historiographic literatuire (and as understand, not limited to only English language)--Dojarca (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME is not about what the scholarly historiographical literature may say, but what terms are in common usage among common people. New York Times editorial staff write in terms in common usage so that common people can understand what they are writing about, in order to sell more newspapers. Martintg (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Pravda" also writes in terms of common people, don't you agree?--Dojarca (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not for the english speaking world. Martintg (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don't you know that Wikipedia should reflect worldwide view?--Dojarca (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, in the body of the article according to the principles of WP:NPOV, but the article title should reflect common english usage. Martintg (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well then we naturally should redirect the USSR to Russia.--Dojarca (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well start a debate in those articles is you believe this should be done. I've not seen that "Russia" is used more commonly that "USSR" in the context of the USSR, so good luck. Martintg (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• By the way. I want to point out that the anti-Soviet goverments of the republics in question were govenments in excile at the time at best or Nazi collaborator regimes. So Nazi Germany could not occupy the states as the leaders of those shadow governments fully supported German invasion. For example, Estonian statesmen called to support German war effort. So if you consider these regimes legitimate, we should rename the article to Nazi liberation of the Baltic states. Please, be consistent with your logic. Please note also that Germany used Bolshvization of the Baltics as a pretext for the war with the USSR in its note to the Soviet government with the war declaration. Please do not make half-steps in your revisionist rage, let's fully revise the whole history of WWII.--Dojarca (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is OR speculation. Martintg (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• What exactly? Do you contest that the shadow goverments supported Nazi war effort? How one can occupy a country which government supports the incoming troops?--Dojarca (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I contest that "Baltic republics" is a term more commonly used than "Baltic states". Martintg (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Russia for the USSR was also more common. Should we move the USSR to Russia? I also think that "Latvian SSR" or "Ukrainian SSR" were completely uncommon in English-speaking media. Etc, etc, etc. Not to say that the article name should be neutral. If someone commonly says Hitler was evil mass murderer, this does not mean the article should be named so. But my point was that you cannot occupy a country that supports your troops. Accepting these regimes as legitimate leads to conclusion that there was liberation rather than occupation (by the way, why not to cite Third Reich media, which clearly said it was liberation?)--Dojarca (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your personal point of view of whether the Nazi presence in the Baltics was liberation or occupation is totally irrelevant to what is being discussed here. What is relevant are the points of view and the common english language usage as expressed in the appropriate published sources. Martintg (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Latvian Legation had nothing good to say about the Nazis. You can read their summary of the Nazi occupation during one year of the occupation, 1943, here. As early as 1949, Švābe's Story of Latvia already recorded the Nazis had killed 88,000 Jews. There was no love lost between the Baltics and Nazi Germany. It's not just what sources say (you purport that Pravda and Soviet--euphemistically referred to as "non-English" sources--are reliable). When it comes to the Soviet version of the history of Eastern Europe, one must also apply the litmus test of what can actually be substantiated as having ever even happened, let alone being an accurate account of events that did occur. We already dutifully record the "Soviet version" (irrespective of its "accuracy") in these various sorts of articles. —PētersV (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

The current title is not consistent with the sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. While no doubt there can be infinite permutations in the search terms used, the current list of terms below gives a ballpark estimate of the relative proportions of usage, which remain consistent across the various permutations, thus it is a good indicator of the likely trend. This trend is confirmed by the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a reliable tertiary source, and thus is a reliable summary of secondary and primary sources, the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to it as a German occupation of the Baltic states [4]

Analysis of Google books reveal the common phrase is "occupation of the Baltic states", regardless of whether it was by the Soviets or the Nazis:

"German occupation of the Baltic states" 16 hits [5]; "German Occupation of the Baltic republics" 1 hit [6]

"Nazi Occupation of the baltic states" 7 hits [7]; "Nazi Occupation of the baltic republics" 0 hits [8]

"Occupation of the baltic states" 565 hits [9]; "Occupation of the baltic republics" 57 hits [10]

Note that of the 57 hits for "republic" above, almost half referred to the Soviet occupation:

"Soviet Occupation of the baltic republics" 25 hits [11]

Google scholar reveals a similar situation:

"German Occupation of the baltic states" 8 hits [12]; "German Occupation of the Baltic Republics" 1 hit [13]

"Nazi Occupation of the baltic states" 5 hits [14]; "Nazi Occupation of the baltic republics" 0 hits [15]

"Occupation of the baltic states" 187 hits [16]; "Occupation of the baltic republics" 14 hits [17]

Again of the 14 hits for "republic", almost half referred to the Soviet occupation:

"Soviet Occupation of the baltic republics" 6 hits [18]

--Martintg (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Question, could you explain what "Baltic states" are you talking about in 1941? --Irpen 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the best way is to read all the sources these searches returned. Nonetheless, they seem to show that using Baltic states is much more common in this context. Oth (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Analyzing Martin's results shows why Google searches of any kind has to be taken with caution. Martin says: ""German occupation of the Baltic states" 16 hits [19];". Let's parse it.

First I see only 13 book hits:[20]

Then there is a duplicate (a book "The SS, Alibi of a Nation, 1922-1945", [1956]) shows up twice)

One book ("Through Terror to Freedom...", Stella Zoe Whishaw Meyendorff) was published in 1929 (!!!).

In two more books (one of which is even in German (!)) the phrase is found in the reference lists as a title of another work (author's can't alter titles of their references) with the work being "Source Materials of the German Occupation of the Baltic States, 1941-1944: Problems and Possibilities.").

One more book is of an unknown year, unknown publisher and no quotes or even snippets, and two more are over 30 years old.

So, we have 4 (not 16) and even counting the old ones, we would have 6.

Next, out of "per Martin: "Nazi Occupation of the baltic states" 7 hits [21]", only three books a valid at all, as in four others the combination is again only in citations to the title of the same external work.

Hopefully, this demonstrates the reliability of hodge-podge googlework to those less familiar with such "debates". Martin, please get serious. --Irpen 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for your published sources that indicate "Baltic republics" is more commonly used than "Baltic states", rather than your rhetorical arguments. Martintg (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, Googlework is spurious here. Why did not you bother to analyze what you were presenting here? Or where you deliberately omitting the obvious information? Also, google would simply miss a lot, eg. "Baltic republics were occupied at", "Germans overrun the Baltic Republics within...", etc.

Most importantly. We are not arguing "Baltic republics" vs "Baltic states" here per se. Those are both established terms used depending on the contexts.

But this is about "Occupation of ....". Occupation of... is not a term-based title of the article, but a descriptive title. Try to find a combination "Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946)" (the article you voted keep under this title) in Google Books hint or Google Scholar another hint.

When titling articles with descriptive names, the best sensible name should be found that would reflect the article's content. Google hodge-podge is meaningless, as demonstrated above. --Irpen 19:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Still more rhetoric and no presentation of alternative sources to support your view as requested? While no doubt there can be infinite permutations in the search terms used, the current list of terms gives a ballpark estimate of the relative proportions of usage, which remain consistent across the various permutations, thus it is a good indicator of the likely trend. This trend is confirmed by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which as a reliable tertiary source, it is a reliable summary of secondary and primary sources. Britannica refers to the German occupation of the Baltic states[22]. Martintg (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, please stop this insulting calling your opponent's good-faithed arguments as "rhetoric". I presented a cohesive argument above. You may not like it, you don't have to agree with it. But you did not answer a single question and your googlework here is very weak and clearly misleading even if simply because you did not bother to take the due care. I hope this would not turn into a usual circus of common voters forming the usual blocks. I've heard already where you would like articles to be. For whatever reason you disregarded the very obvious faults in your google results and presented them in a misleading way. I showed that. I am interested to hear more sensible argument from different people. We are discussing here which title would be better as neither is totally wrong. Please reconsider your attitude. --Irpen 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

??? According to Wikipedia's own article, Rhetoric is "the art of harnessing reason, emotions and authority, through language, with a view to persuade an audience and, by persuading, to convince this audience to act, to pass judgment or to identify with given values". It is an ancient and honourable skill, with whole university departments devoted to the study of rhetoric. So I don't understand why you believe it to be an insult. Are you not attempting to persuade us with your arguments alone? If Wikipedia was a venue for original research, then presentation of cohesive arguments is appropriate. However, Wikipedia policy requires that material is backed by published sources. I merely asked you to find some sources to back your arguments, rather than rely on argument alone. Martintg (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Britannica is a POW source. Why not to refer to Great Soviet Encyclopedia instead? Anyway the version you're insisting on is no doubt POW.--Dojarca (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody, please calm down and stop this silly edit-warring, everything doesn't have to be so political, the real question here and now is - which phrase is more descriptive and more suitable for encyclopedia. Right now it doesn't even look like clash of the soviet and anti-soviet POV (I hope Dojarca made an honest mistake and the whole situation has not gone so far that we really should starting to talk about POW's ;) ), only different personal preferences. Both pre-occupation and post-occupation entities can equally be referred as states or as republics, trying to deliberately distort either ones actual meaning is not going to lead anywhere. I personally would prefer 'Baltic states' - purely on the fact that I have encountered this notation more often myself and it seems more general, hence more suitable. But if there's good reason, why there should be 'republics' - OK, no real harm done. Unfortunately, so far I haven't seen any good arguments pro 'republics', please, if there is any, present them. Thank you :) Ptrt (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ptrt! I'm disappointed that editors who have been embroiled in the legitimacy of Soviet rule in the Baltics have opened an opportunity to rehash old positions on the Baltics. This road has been traveled down many times, however perhaps we'll pick up some new editors and it will be an opportunity to educate new participants. (It's been suggested I allow the communal Wiki-wisdom work its magic.) —PētersV (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)/ revised PētersV (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think I know all the 'players' here, and recognize their favorite tactics too, but one can always hope that maybe this time our respected opposition is able to play by the rules and keep in their mind that it's not political playground, it's encyclopedia. Remember, WP:AGF, no matter how ridiculous it seems here and now ;) And by 'honest mistake' I was referring only to Dojarca's mistake with abbreviation - POW (prisoner of war) vs POV (point of view), I don't think I'd be able to assume that for his whole action. Well.. let's hope for the best. Ptrt (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Britannica is POV source (which is a matter of opinion) it's having an article called Baltic states (a totally valid topic) necessitates the choice of terms it uses in the particular article. No evidence shown that it uses the term elsewhere in the WW2 context. --Irpen 05:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go for the use of BR in WW2 context by Britannica:

• German-Soviet-Nonaggression-Pact. Quote: "The Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were annexed by the Soviet Union and were organized as Soviet republics in August 1940. The Nonaggression Pact became a dead letter on June 22, 1941, when Nazi Germany, after having invaded much of western and central Europe, attacked the Soviet Union without warning in Operation Barbarossa."
• history of Europe:The blast of World War II. Quote: Stalin had long made clear that he sought to recover the three Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, as well as the part of Poland that the Poles had seized after Versailles.

Note, the context of the usage. --Irpen 05:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I already presented 25 references to the "Soviet occupation of the Baltic Republics" [23], you have just added two more. Thanks. These 27 references refer to the lawful states established in 1918, which were also republics (as opposed to, say, a constitutional monarchy). If we were simply arguing about whether the Baltic countries are more commonly referred to as "Baltic republics" or "Baltic states" during most of the 20th century, rather than attempt to find single line quotes buried within the content of some book, let's list the number of books that has "Baltic states" in the title, and the number of books with "Baltic republics" in the title. That should be a reasonable measure of which is more common.

• 925 books with Baltic states explicitly mentioned in the title
• 75 books with Baltic republics explictly mentioned in the title

A similar order of magnitude of difference as my previous searches, confirming that "Baltic states" is more common than "Baltic republics", regardless of the period within the 20th Century, whether it be pre, during or post-WW2. Martintg (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see that at all from the conversation. Could you point me to the place where you demonstrated that? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of 925 versus 75 book titles and the term "common usage" do you not understand? Martintg (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In scholarly enterprises we don't count heads. Can you present some information about context and notability of sources, please? In particular for the "regardless" part, in light of Irpen's objections? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage" from WP:COMMONNAME. You don't think a name used an order of magnitude more often in book titles is sufficient evidence of common usage? Martintg (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not if the books discuss overall periods and not common usage with respect to this particular period. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what? I've already presented evidence on which term is more common, how about you present evidence to the contrary. If "Baltic republic" was in more common usage, evidence should be easy to find since you claim it is, well, more common. Martintg (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't presented evidence on which is more common with reference to this particular historical period, I'm afraid. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. In any case, I've just had a brainwave - why not merely name them? --Relata refero (disp.) 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Name all 925 books make reference to that particular period as the Nazis occupying the Baltic states? Come now, if "Baltic republics" was more commonly used, surely you could provide some evidence, your evasiveness on this point leads me to believe that this designation is noy so commonly used as you suggest. Martintg (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you see a !vote from me? So why not stop getting me to substantiate something I haven't said? I'm merely pointing out that the evidence you brought to the table - a google search, of all the scholarly methods - does not discriminate between periods, and Irpen has pointed out that that is a relevant issue. Until you update your argument to deal with that, it is not something the closing admin is likely to consider. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is you who should provide evidence for the move. --Dojarca (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "States" is used across all periods. "Republics" is the lesser, but still, used. To look for discrimination in the use of terms referring to the Baltics at the time they were occupied by the Soviets and to infer that the use of the word "republic" means sources recognized that the Baltics were SSRs is pure synthesis. Advocating "republic" here is (as Dojarca has clearly stated herein in the exact words) to mean the Baltics were de jure republic constituents of the U.S.S.R. Therefore "republic" is the POV term here. —PētersV (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain how its synthesis in the sense we use it on Wikipedia? Note that "infer(ring) that the use of the word "republic" means sources recognized that the Baltics were SSRs" is precisely what we are not doing. You, apparently, are. I at least am merely concerned that the most common name used currently for these entities during this time period is the title of the article. I am not interested in what the implications might be for international law or justice or whatever. Is there some policy-based reason I should be? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Relata refero. If you read through Dojarca's contentions, that is exactly what his objection is to the rename from "republic" to "state"--his synthesis that "republic" means "SSR" and that's what they were and that's how they were being referred to any time the word "republic" is used to refer to the Baltics post-Soviet occupation. However, anywhere outside the Soviet Union the Baltics were considered occupied territories (whether the Soviets or Nazis) and were still referred to as occupied states, or if referred to as republics, still meant as states (not SSRs). By asking "how specifically were the Baltics referred to at this time (while occupied by the Nazis)" plays to Dojarca's synthesis. You will not find any Western sources that refer to the Baltics being Nazi-occupied Soviet territory. "States" is the predominant form to "republic", as I've mentioned, from encyclopedias from the 1920's through to current scholarship; while sources discussing the SSRs specifically refer to them as such. The general discussion of "states" versus "republics" has already been settled as demonstrated by the titles of all the other articles on WP having to do with the Baltic states.

   You're looking to find/validate any chronological distinction in the usage of the terms "states" and "republics" regarding the Baltics for the period of the Nazi occupation; however, you will only find such distinction, that is, "republic as SSR," as opposed to their prior existance as "bourgeoisie fascist states," in Soviet literature, ergo, "republic" being the POV term with regard to the Baltics under Soviet occupation generally, and in particular while under Nazi occupation after the Nazis drove out the occupying Soviet forces.

   I hope this clarifies without seeming to just be more repetition. —PētersV (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In case this interests anyone, I searched The New York Times for June 1, 1941 to April 1, 1944 and "Baltic states" yielded 377 results while "Baltic republics" gave 23. Some examples of the former: June 24, 1941 - "Three Baltic States in Revolt...Estonia, third of the little Baltic States absorbed by Russia last Summer, was expected by Baltic political exiles to revolt with the approach of Nazi armies". November 18, 1941 - "Nazis Set Up Rule in Occupied Russia. Dr. Alfred Rosenberg Named Minister for East - Baltic States Are Included...Under the subdivision of the occupied Russian territory into the 'Ostland' and Ukraine, the three Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, will be included". March 31, 1943 - "Strong anti-German activity was reported tonight in occupied Lithuania, where it was said to be causing grave concern to Nazi authorities in view of the proximity of Russian troops to the Baltic States". February 14, 1944 - "London military observers said the Germans might be starting a general withdrawal into the Baltic States, hoping to find a new line along which to stem the Soviet tide".
I'll give a couple of "Baltic republics" quotes for balance. June 7, 1942 - "Soviet Russia's post-war claims to the Baltic republics and to portions of Poland and Rumania as a means of protecting her long, exposed Western frontier are 'reasonable - if not moderate', [declares Commonweal]". February 23, 1943 - "On the northern front the Germans [are] preparing to evacuate Estonia, northernmost of the Baltic republics".
Interestingly, the score for July 1, 1940 to June 1, 1941 is 142 to 14, so even when they were SSRs, the Times overwhelmingly called them "states". Biruitorul (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think this conclusively and unquestionably confirms that "Baltic states" is the common name for that region for that period in question. Martintg (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  In the New York Times. You omitted an important detail.--Dojarca (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

a) Well, naturally Pravda called them something else. b) I think we can safely extrapolate to other major English-language papers, not to mention the US and possibly other Allied governments. Or, let's put it this way: would you care to bring contrary (and preferably non-Soviet) evidence? Let's say, the Chicago Tribune backing "Baltic republics"? Biruitorul (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proofs

Google results might be sloppy and should not be completely trusted (we all should know its limits), but so far there was not a single proof presented that "Baltic republics" would make a better choice other than user's ORish opinion. Renata (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Analyzing Britannica: it does not have an article devoted to the Nazi occupation; it has however an article on the Baltic states. The link that Martintg refers to is a section in that article. Therefore naturally it will be named "Baltic states: Nazi occupation" in line with other sections about economy or geography. Therefore it is not a proof that "states" is more appropriate term for that specific period. Renata (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Strong opposition"

Some points regarding the above.

The only reason to move is to push the contemporary Baltic POV and anti-Soviet propaganda.

The Baltic POV regarding Soviet presence has been immutable, nothing to do with contemporary POVs or anti-Sovietism.

The states did not exist at the moment the German invasion began.

The sovereign authorities of the Baltics existed outside of territorial events (Soviet occupation, Nazi occupation, Soviet re-occupation/liberation), therefore it is factual to refer to the territory legitimately under that sovereignty as having been occupied and re-occupied.

The name Baltic states clearly implies state independence and used only by anti-Soviet and revisionist political forces when speaking of the period of WWII

This contention mixes apples and oranges. "States" signifies Baltic sovereignty as the de jure authority. Whether one considers them occupied, destroyed, annexed, no longer independent, etc. at the time of Nazi invasion is at best a discussion of how to portray the Soviet position. From the standpoint of the legitimate authority over the Baltics being interfered with and prevented from functioning (definition of occupation), it is the "states" that are being occupied.

The jure they were under Soviet jurisdiction as they were incorporated in the USSR in 1940.--Dojarca (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

this is simply factually incorrect. the soviet incorporation of Baltic States never was recognized de jure by the SU allies in WWII. De facto it only happened in Jalta, that was in 1945. Since Estonia Latvia Lithuania were incorporated into Nazi Ostland during WWII it's absurd to say that they were under Soviet jurisdiction as they were incorporated in the USSR in 1940. --98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 98.212.196.116 is correct. Soviet takeover of Baltic states in 1940 was not recognized internationally. Soviet Union was clearly viewed as an aggressor, and was dismissed from the League of Nations in 1939 for Soviet attack on Finland. De jure Baltic states still existed during World War II, with acting embassies across the world, etc. --Greggerr (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Having embassies in foreign countries does not make you legitimate. For example, Kosovo has embasies in a number of states.--Dojarca (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is totally absurd I think. Even common sense says that countries where you have embassies take you as a legitimate country. That it doesn't make it legitimate in your opinion is another story. Just that wasn't an encyclopedia about citing facts instead of editorial opinions?--98.212.196.116 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR and Estonian SSR and everybody can check when they were established.

This contention, too, mixes apples and oranges. What a de facto controlling authority chooses to name a territory it controls, and when that control started and ended, has nothing to do with the illegitimate displacement of legitimate sovereignty, which is what the term "occupation" refers to. —PētersV (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is only your POWV that the attachment was illegitimate. Wheather it was made lawfully or with some flaws in the procedure does not change anything as they were parts of the USSR at the time. I can provide you sources that they were annexed or incorporated in the USSR (do you contest it?). That the incorporation was not recognised by some foreign powers does not mean anything: for example, Kosovo is recognized by some powers, but it is de jure part of Serbia.--Dojarca (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is simply absurd. Since the Baltic states or republics or whatever were occupied by Germany and incorporated into Ostland during WWII, how is it possible to claim that they were parts of the USSR at the time. --98.212.196.116 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the German invasion, of course.--Dojarca (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the German invasion no country other than Germany itself had recognized de facto or de jure Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania as a part of the USSR.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweden for example.--Dojarca (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My dear Dojarca, it's not "my POV" that Soviet occupation/annexation of the Baltics was illegitimate. The Russian Duma has still to produce a shred of evidence to support its post-Soviet era proclamation that Latvia joined the USSR "legally according to international law." Then there's the rather unfortunate (for the Russian position) matter of the treaty Russia signed with Lithuania prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union which acknowledged in writing that the Soviet Union failed to respect Lithuania's sovereignty (that is, admitting occupation without explicitly using the "O" word). No one outside the Russian foreign ministry today suggests that the Baltics were not seized illegally. (And even Lavrov knows the truth, he was negotiating on behalf of the central Soviet to acknowledge the Baltic occupation at the time the USSR broke up, this is from people I know who were sitting across the table from him, that is, first hand accounts.) But didn't you turn around and stop arguing that "republic means 'SSR'" and you were only seeking the most common term? Or this means you're back to your original position regarding opposition to the move? —PētersV (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all as I stated before, even if the countries were occupied, they could be occupied only before incorporating in the USSR. Once they became parts of the USSR they could not be occupied any more as nobody can occupy its iwn territory. Anyway, if you reject existance of the baltic soviet republics, why not to simply redirect Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR and Estonian SSR to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia respectively? If there all the way were only "baltic states", why we need all these articles?--Dojarca (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I too have read Russian generals' pronouncements that "You can't occupy what belongs to you." With all due respect to the Russian position, we've already recorded that POV on Wikipedia. As I already mentioned, there is absolutely no evidence to support that position, and Russia even signed a treaty admitting the USSR occupied Lithuania. The Baltics were controlled and administered by the Soviets (and by preventing the rightful sovereign authority from functioning, thereby were an occupation), the Baltics did not "belong" to the Soviet Union or legally or willingly yield their sovereignty to become "part" of the Soviet Union. There is no impediment to considering the Baltic states to have been occupied by the Soviets, by the Nazis, and then reoccupied by the Soviets--that is, in fact, the view of any historians that care to use verifiable facts to back their position. As for your bit of rhetoric on why not just redirect the SSR articles, I don't reject that the SSRs existed as administrative units of the USSR. No different than the Nazi's Reichskommissariat Ostland, only with an attempted (and failed) improvement in window-dressing (fake elections whose results, alas, were published 24 hours before the polls closed, etc.). The SSRs represent part of the history of the Baltic territories and deserve to be examined fully regarding the impact of Soviet actions on the peoples of the Baltic states. —PētersV (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Technically should be Baltic States (capital "S") as states, small s, signifies part of a union, as recently noted. —PētersV (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dorjarca also believes Encyclopedia Britannica is a POV source. I guess he also believes the authors of the 925 books about the Baltic states are all part of the "anti-Soviet and revisionist political forces" bent on propagating "Baltic POV and anti-Soviet propaganda". These small Baltic nations must have perfected mind control and reached their tentacles into the minds of Britannica authors, it seems. Martintg (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• This would appear to summarize Dojarca's position that it did not matter how the Baltics "joined" the USSR, once they did, they could not be occupied by the Soviet Union--the logical follow-on being that the subsequent Nazi invasion occupied Soviet republics, not Baltic states. —PētersV (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would venture that a majority of references referring to Baltic "republics" mean it in the sense of "states", not SSRs. All the references I've seen that deal with the SSRs refer to them as such. The argument here isn't which, "state" or "republic," is more prevalent, the argument here in opposition to the move is that all uses of "republic" with respect to WWII and occupation of the Baltics explicitly denote "SSR". Given that "state" and "republic" were interchangeable (as the states were republics in their form of government), the argument opposing the move misconstrues all uses of republic meant as "state" as indicating republic meant as "SSR." The position that all sources which refer to Baltic "republics" with reference to WWII explicitly denote "SSRs" is a personal synthesis. —PētersV (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So the term "republic" is more neutral as it can be used in both meanings - to refer to the independent states and the constituent republics of the USSR. The term also more widely used in the context of the WWII. No reason to move the article to the explicitely non-neutral term.--Dojarca (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You argue to use "republic" because they were SSRs. "States" is the far more prevalent term otherwise. You can't have it both ways, advocating using "republic" to support your position of "SSR" at the time and turn around and at the same time say you're picking "republic" because it is more neutral. By your own advocacy it is not.

   I appreciate some of the responses that say "they were republics" before the war, therefore "republic" is more informative, but that was not the prevalent use either then or now. Neither would anyone argue that the SSRs were truly a republican form of government--so the use of "republic" in fact obscures, not clarifies. Encyclopedia articles from the 20's (properly) call Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland "Baltic States" (capital "S") as most were the Baltic provinces prior to independence. Books on the history of the Baltic states written by today's preeminent scholars (and not of Baltic heritage), such as Prof. John Hiden, use "States" with reference to the Baltics. References are completely consistent with regard to the use of "S/states". —PētersV (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not proven the term republics is more widely used in the context of WW2. You have not even provided any sources to back this. The view that "states" is POV is in itself fringe POV, as is your view that Britannica is POV equivalent to the Soviet Encyclopedias. Some of the sources refer to the states established in 1918 as "republics", Irpen even unwittingly illustrates this point with two references than mention the Soviets occupying the Baltic republics, which technically they were ofcourse, in contrast to, say, Australia, which is a constitutional monarchy. My point is that while "republic" and "state" denote the same legal entity from 1918 to the present, "state" is ten time more common in usage. Wikipedia is clear on this, article titles must follow common usage. It is pretty clear that the opposers fail to understand this point in attempting to push the fringe POV that the Baltic states were legally and voluntarily a part of the Soviet Union when the Germans attacked, hence their opposition to a reasonable move based upon wikipedia guidelines. The opposers have demonstrated here that the intent of this article is promote this fringe POV, AfD may have to be revisited. Martintg (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, Martin. That's WAY over the top, don't you think? WHat was the Rhe- word? Gosh, you really can't let those feelings go. --Irpen 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That is American or British editor? Then nothing strange with it. They probably also call Kosovo "state". Note that the official position of any state influences what terms use historians living in this country.--Dojarca (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrap up

Biruitorul has provided conclusive evidence from a historical source as discussed here [24]. This is confirmed by a search of Time Magazine, where articles from the period between from June 1, 1941 to September 22, 1944, "Baltic states" has 40 references[25], and "Baltic republics" only has 2 references[26], both being quotes of Soviet officials. This, plus the other evidence provided from the Google book searches, clearly shows that "Baltic states" is overwhelmingly the most common designation for that region, both during the Nazi occupation and also in recent studies of the nazi occupation. Martintg (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not to search through "Pravda"?--Dojarca (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is english language Wikipedia, we use what is common in english. What you want to use in russian language Wikipedia is not my concern. Martintg (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this article, November 26, 1939, from Pravda, which states "Why Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have concluded with the Soviet government treaties which secure them independence, peace and quiet work, but the Finnish government wrecked the negotiations and now hold their people in a condition of anxious uncertainty?" Notice guarantees of independence and peace. The article lampoons the Finnish prime minister as a buffoon, this would presumably be why Stalin attacked Finland, having no tolerance for buffoons on his doorstep and seeking to resolve the Finns' anxious uncertainty. (Of course the Soviets first accused the Finns of attacking, declared the Finns' fortifications an affront to Soviet peaceful intentions, and so the Red Army was therefore obligated to attempt to obliterate the affronting Finns by force, but another story.)

   Dojacra, you might consider that the more you strive to defend your editorial position the less tenable it becomes, as it is a house built on even less than sand. —PētersV (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in general, it appears Russian usage slightly favors Прибалтийские республики (republics) versus Прибалтийские государства (states). Truth be told, "Baltic countries (страны)" is the most popular usage in Russian. Regardless, Russian usage and preferences of idiom are not applicable to an English language encyclopedia. —PētersV (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Question Is there any further objection to Occupation of the Baltics by Nazi Germany? It seems this suggestion might have been buried amongst all the discussion, and may be the best title to keep both "sides" happy. JPG-GR (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While I'm sure some will argue I'm emotionally partisan here, I don't believe that a conclusive editorial argument has been made that there is a need in the case of this article only to depart from general convention (and as used everywhere else in Wikipedia, that is the slightly incorrect small "s" in Baltic States). The interchangeable use of "states", "republics" and "countries" concerning the Baltics (except as "Soviet republics," in which case they are explicitly referred to as such) appears to be more happenstance than anything else. And the editor most vociferously in favor of "republics" supported it to further a fringe--outside of Russia and currently the official Russian position--POV. While I considered it earlier in this forum, I do not currently editorially support titling according to (fringe + non-fringe)/2 = title as a compromise of convenience.
     And since "republics" was originally pushed as representing "Soviet republics," I should mention that none of the advocates for legitimate Soviet republics have produced reputable scholarly evidence in support of that position, nor for the proclamations to that effect by the post-Soviet Russian Duma. This has been a long-standing hot-bed of editoral contention and will likely continue to be so until the official Russian position changes. —PētersV (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Time to go back to "states"

Every other article uses the common usage "Baltic states." There is no requirement here to do otherwise. Fortunately we now have additional means for checking usage, such as Google's ngram viewer, as, for example, here, showing the use of the terms Baltic states and Baltic republics (a) parallel each other—meaning, there is no indication that "republics" was preferred to "states" by publications during the period of occupation by Nazi Germany, and (b) the VAST preponderance of usage is states, not republics. "Baltic countries" also trails "Baltic states" significantly. I can't speak to the motivations of editors who felt a burning desire to flaunt the vastly predominant convention just for this article, but, clearly, there is—conclusively—no need for this article to ignore convention. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

By the "the vastly predominant convention" you mean you own personal contention. (Igny (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

Why is it, exactly, that every other article on WP refers to the Baltic "states" per common convention while a small assortment of editors including yourself insists on "republics" specifically for the period of occupation by Nazi Germany, as in, for example, the "Republics of the USSR"? As you can see here, based on sources and year published, "Baltic states" trumps "Baltic republics" by a vastly overwhelming margin including the multi-year period of occupation by Nazi Germany. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised at how you twist the "common convention". The common convention is to use the term contemporary to the event, not the term contemporary to you. (Igny (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

Perhaps you misunderstood the graph, that is by year of source, so for the period of occupation by Nazi Germany it shows results for that period contemporary to the event. The overwhelming dominance of "Baltic states" over "Baltic republics" is completely consistent. I'm discouraged that you accuse me of twisting simple facts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it more obvious, here is 1940 through 1945 (no smoothing, year-by-year usage). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Vecrumba, Google ngrams irrefutably shows "Baltic (s|S)tates" to be the more common term used during the period 1940-1945. --Martin (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

PS, if there is no further objection within a couple of days, I'll move the article. --Martin (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You may try to move, it will only be moved back. Your arguments are not sufficient enough. At the time of German occupation there were no Baltic states, there had been Baltic states before the Soviet annexation and that what the graphs may be all about, but German occupied Soviet republic at the moment. (Igny (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

P.S. You may contend all you want that annexation did not happen, Baltic republics never happened, that won't change actual history. (Igny (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

Igny, do you have a source that backs up this view, or is this your personal synthesis? --Martin (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not need one because your argument is absurd. If you want to see how absurd it sounds, try this

As you can see Google ngrams irrefutably shows that "Baltic states" is not a common name, so we should rename them to "Soviet Union".

You can try the same exercise with apples and oranges. (Igny (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

• We have WP:Common name policy. Just do Google scholar or Google books searches to identify the common name [27], and do not argue using childish tricks that belong to essay by Moreschi. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not a childish trick. As soon as the Baltic states became part of USSR, scholars just used the term Soviet Union to describe whatever happened in any of the Soviet republics, Soviet Baltic republics included (see [28] for example). So you may forget about your silly comparison graph, as it proves nothing. (Igny (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

That search is irrelevant to the topic of this article. This search[29] is more relevant in both the topic and period of usage. --Martin (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Igny: the overwhelming statistics do not support your irrelevant Google search which returns scientific papers published in Tallinn. All your example proves, by way of neat little microcosm, is that the Soviet Union contended Estonia belonged to it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do is to bring it to an RM. Might as well try to rename Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, and Lithuanian SSR, while you are at it. (Igny (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) @Igny: by your latest NGRAM logic, one would be equally compelled by the results of this that "Peters" is a hugely more common term than "moron", and therefore all morons should be renamed to Peters. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to use that argument at the RM. (Igny (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Igny, if we expand the scope of the ngram search to the period 1940-1980[30] the term "occupation of the Baltic s(S)tates" still dominates. If you are arguing that the usage of term shown in the ngram result is not related to the German occupation, then you must be implying that this ngram result instead applies to the Soviet period. Which occupation is it? --Martin (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Igny. It's not my graph, this is YOUR graph - I copy-pasted it. Of course you always have more refs to a big notable country X than to a small non-notable country Y (like USA versus Barbados). It does not mean that one should use name "US" instead of "Barbados". Frankly, I have seen many arguments, but never something quite like that. That's why I paid attention.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that Baltic states might also trump Baltic republics in Russian as well. No? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I think that settles it then. --Martin (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sept 2020 edit

Preserving here by providing this link. The lead implied that ethnic majorities were deported and mass killed, among other issues. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)