Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Tsygankov

I would only note that per the quoted "Separating victory over Fascism and the occupation by the Soviets did not turn out to be possible for the small Eastern European nations" rather puts him in the национально-патриотическое camp, as he ignores the crux of the issue in a monumentally biased fashion, which is that the USSR invaded first and that neither the USSR nor Russia has ever acknowledged occupying the Baltic states, making his statement incongruous at best. His bias unmistakeably brands him a prideful Russian product of the Soviet system. Where he is currently employed does not render his scholarly opinions to be "Western" scholarship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, he makes for interesting reading, but his understanding of the rise of identity in the latter half of the 19th century of Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians; including Baltic Russians; including the impact of autonomy and of Alexander III's russification campaign and post-revolution fears of losing identity under the Bolsheviks, is cursory at best; and so, combined with ignoring the Soviet role as initial aggressor in occupying the Baltic states in WWII, his conclusions reflect his socio-geopolitical belief system more than objective, dispassionate—and in cases, informed—scholarship. And, as I indicated, in no way to be construed as "Western." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By all criteria, Tsygankov is a reliable source, so, for Wikipedia purposes, it absolutely irrelevant what camp this reliable western writer represents. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, getting off a boat does not make Tsygankov a "Western" writer. Tsygankov, who was schooled in the Soviet Union, is accurately said to represent the национально-патриотическое camp based on an objective examination of his writings. Which camp he is in determines where he goes in the article and what his position is stated as representing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you insist, we can always start a subsection on Russian populace including scholars in the diaspora who cling to the национально-патриотическое view of the so-called "victory over Fascism" in the Baltic states. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the scholar working for UCLA (or UCSF?) and publishing the books in western academic publishing houses is a western scholar, and to claim the opposite is racism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Where someone is employed does not determine the ascribing of their viewpoints. You and other editors, certainly, ascribe a Baltic viewpoint to myself, yet I was born and raised in the United States and am certainly far more "western" in every way than Tsygankov. So, shall I accuse editors of racism when they state I have a Baltic/pro-Baltic/in keeping with official Baltic viewpoint? Shall I accuse editors of racism whenever they state an emigre scholar is "Baltic" and has a particular POV? I don't know whether your statement is simply a pathetic and cynical attempt to misrepresent mainstream Western scholarship or just grossly offensive beyond all words. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think discussing what school of thought a particular scholar belongs to is "racist". It is clear that Russian historiography is deeply politicised and split between the "liberal-democratic" and "patriotic-nationalist" schools. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that moderating observation, I suggest we get back to content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Tsygankov believes the Baltic states were subjected to 50 years of colonial rule: "In August 1940, however, Latvia's, as well as Lithuania's and Estonia's, period of independence was also terminated following the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact in August 1939. The pact's secret protocols defined respective spheres of influence, the the Baltics falling within Moscow's area. Fifty years of colonial status led to dramatic changes in Latvia's domestic economy and composition of trade."[1]

--Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is why Tsygankov is interesting, if intellectually conflicted, reading, as on the one hand he appears to recognize the circumstances and effects of Soviet occupation to some degree, but when those circumstances are pointed out by the Baltics (or anyone else) to the detriment of Russia's image (as in Russia not acknowledging occupation), he savages them, hence his ultimately being unable to fully relax his embrace of the nationalist-patriotic defense of Mother Russia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Tsygankov sees a distinction between colonialisation and occupation (I suppose it is possible to occupy a nation without colonising it), and believes it was more a case of the former than the later? In any case, as you say his views are complex. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he repeats his Baltics not separating victory over fascism from occupation theme pretty much verbatim in more than one work. In his book on Russophobia, he speaks poorly of the Baltic "anti-Russia" Lobby (capital "L"); he disparages the Baltic account (occupation et al.) as "ignoring the issue's historical context" but doesn't actually state what is wrong, just as he alleges discrimination against Russians but provides no detail. When scholars profess as to situations but do not provide the basis but simply state those situations as facts, they have strayed from the principles of rigorous scholarship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Tsygankov cites content from Peter Lavelle's now-defunct (no response by web site) personal blog ("Untimely Thoughts") retrieved from the web. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To Martin's above and below, regardless of Tsygankov siding with the nationalists-patriots when it comes to situations where Russia and the Baltics go head to head, one-on-one, even Tsygankov uses "colonized"—rather means occupation as the territory colonized is not the colonizer's and the colonizer is deporting and murdering the indigenous citizens of another sovereign nation). Of course others who maintain it's not possible to "occupy" territory for half a century will differ. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, since Tsygankov is already quoted in the article, I added the bit about "colonial status" as well to round out his position. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag continued

I have looked over the long discussion on the POV tag above, and have failed to see that the dispute was resolved. If anything, it demonstrated that several ways to resolve the dispute was rejected by the pro-Baltic-POV editors here. I guess we would have to wait for more reasonable editors join the discussion to break an apparent impasse. (Igny (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Igny, do you really understand what the POVs are? Tsygankov claims the Baltic states had the status of a colony in the USSR[2]. Does that mean you will now claim Tsygankov is pro-Baltic? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As I am not "pro-Baltic" I fail to see your post as anything other than "anti-Baltic editors are needed for balance because the current consensus is pro-Baltic". WP:CONSENSUS does not say "anyone can maintain a POV tag just because they do not have consensus on their side." Really. Yet that appears to be the sole remaining argument for it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: I am not "pro-Baltic". Does it mean that you support or reject the proposals to resolve this dispute (proposed by me, Paul and Russavia earilier?). Re anyone can maintain a POV tag just because they do not have consensus on their side. It goes two ways. You can't really remove the tag just because you do not have consensus to remove it. The tag unambiguously says to resolve the dispute first. It is not resolved, it is not stale, what possible argument do you have for removing the tag? None, other than your POV. Which ironically is what the POV tag is for.(Igny (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

I made an edit which was suggested by you. That would scarcely make me "pro-Baltic" I would suggest. The purpose of the tag is to indicate an actual discussion about any POV problems. Your assertionis that the poroblem is that there are "pro-Baltic editors" is grossly insufficient on that basis. It appears the only way to get Russavia to approve of an article is to strictly conform to Russavia's views. Alas - that is not how the POV tag is supposed to work. Cheers - and again note my earnest attempt to include your own proposal in the article. Which you appear to find insufficient. Collect (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not have to repeat an edit made by me. The information you "added" was and still is in the first paragraph, there is no point to repeat it in the first ten words of the article. There is a clear dispute here which Russavia has very little to do with other than to propose just one of the ways to resolve it. If you want to make the edit suggested by me and truly incorporate one of my proposals into the article, then rename the article to "Occupation and annexation of the baltic states". (Igny (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The RM to your preferred title failed, your insistence that a POV tag remains on the article until such a time as you get your way is contrary to policy, as such I have removed it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

POV tag sidebar

Regarding the most recent restoration with the edit summary: "(sorry, no, it doesn't look like the issue was resolved and accepted by both sides on the talk page)", really, the notion of sides is acrimonious at best. Greyhood, please summarize what issue(s) you see which require the POV tag you restored. That there is (by your edit summary, my characterization), a disagreement based on ("both" = two sides):

• tag not deserved
• tag deserved (i.e., those who oppose those who believe that tag is not deserved)

is not a justification for getting involved in edit-warring over the tag. Do not take edit-warring as an accusation or that I am threatening you with enforcement actions as other editors have threatened myself and others. I am merely pointing out to you that as an interested party, saying nothing about the merits of the POV tag in restoring it only amplifies the acrimony and identifies you as a participant of one of the "sides," rendering your restoration a partisan action. So I invite you to explain what it is about/in the article that requires the POV tag you restored (your words, your editorial position, not referencing editors on either "side").

Oh, and still waiting for Igny's Socratic method, BTW. I haven't forgotten. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion on presenting the view points in this article in the discussions above, and not very much time passed since. My concerns have been to a certain extent addressed, though, thank you for the work. Nevertheless I don't find the amount of the word "illegal" in the lead appropriate, since it looks like a too strong POV pushing, given the fact that there is significant Russian POV which contradicts the illegality statement and now is presented in the lead. Also, I don't find the references to Boris Sokolov appropriate, he has rather bad reputation as a historian. GreyHood ^Talk 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless I feel that some of the recent edits really made the article more neutral and there are proscpects for further improvements, and if the other supporters of the POV tag, such as Paul, will find the new changes enough, I'll avoid further meddling in. GreyHood ^Talk 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral and uninvolved editor its clear there is still a concern over POV that hasn't been resolved here. A quick look indicates to me that there has been no attempt to look at dispute resolution and edit warring to remove a POV tag seems a remarkably stupid thing to be blocked for. Might suggest you talk a deep breath and stop sniping at one another. Perhaps you should seek mediation at WP:Medcab. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, "dispute resolution". Like that time I started an RfC here only to have it driven into a wall by the regulars and my "intent" in starting the RfC questioned by another user in a gross assumption of bad faith. Heed the "Notice to new editors" at the top and look through the archives. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Lothar, firstly, keep in mind that, whereas one editors accused you, others supported you RfC, so everything is not so bad. Secondly, WCM proposes not an RfC, but mediation, which is a second step in dispute resolution. In my opinion, this proposal is absolutely correct. I believe all users who are really confident in the strengths of their arguments should agree on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

'No attempts" Try looking at the NPOV noticeboard <g>. Most certainly there have been attempts. Look at the article history - Igny removed the POV tag with his only change being renaming the article to include "Annexation" -- that is the sole POV issue he has - and I suggest that where he rejects just having "annexation" in the lede, but is happy if it is in the title, that such is an insufficient reason for an eternal tag. And again there most certainly have been attempts at dispute resoution just look at the noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will at least thank Greyhood for almost conforming to my invitation, which included not naming any editors to avoid aligning one's self with a "side." Still, it is helpful you clarified your position that "illegal" is disputed by a portion of Russian public and scholarly opinion and by the Russian state (described as the "nationalist-patriotic" position) and therefore the presence of "illegal" in the lede is problematic. Hopefully it is equally helpful that I observe that the disputing of "illegal" is an opinion, as even the Russian Duma never produced any evidence supporting its declaration that (in the case of the specific declaration) that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. In the absence of supporting documentation of "legal" and the presence of overwhelming scholarship and documentation confirming "illegal," it would be undue weight for the lede to remove "illegal" in deference to the position of the Russian state and those who support it. Personally, there is far too much on the "nationalist-patriotic" position in the lede given its lack of foundation, but so be it. If you have evidence for your contention of poor scholarship regarding Sokolov, please feel free to express your concerns here or in private. In this area of polarized views regarding the Soviet legacy, you will appreciate that one person's "bad reputation" is anther person's "badge of approval." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you read Russian, you may just look at the Russian article on Sokolov and check the sources listed there. GreyHood ^Talk 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit politicized, still, I'll do some more checking. I wonder what he said in The Soviet Story to contribute to the Russian furore over it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the WP:NPOVN[3] where another user expressed a concern about the article's language. I find this concern quite reasonable, and I believe it should be addressed. In addition, I think all labels ("national-patriotic" or "liberal-democratic", "western" or "Russian") should also be removed as inappropriate: the sources cannot be western or eastern, they are reliable (can be used in WP) and inreliable (cannot be used).
In addition, the article contains a huge section devoted to the Soviet/Russian position, and no sections devoted to the position of the Baltic states themselves, as well as to the position of the Western countries. I do not propose, however, to expand the article, my proposal is different: move the most of the Soviet/Russian position related text to the appropriate daughter article.
The statement: "Baltic legations or governments in exile formally vested with sovereign authority functioned throughout the Soviet period." is incorrect. There were no Baltic governments in exile, just several embassies or consulate, whose status was quite vague in most western countries. The sentence should be fixed accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The editor commenting at NPOVN appears to be a newbie with only 93 edits, while it is always good to have a fresh set of eye, I'm not sure as to the degree of their understanding of NPOV policy. Many newbies tend to make the mistake in believing NPOV is about synthesising a "neutral viewpoint", rather than just reporting the viewpoints per due weight. There is nothing wrong with identifying schools of thought, how else do we identify and attribute due weight to viewpoints if we don't identify them? As for the "Baltic legations or governments in exile" issue, that can be addressed, but it is complex and needs some thought, do you have some concrete suggestions here? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This user is a newbie, but I am not. I agree with most of what he writes, and I believe the overall article's tone is far from neutrality.

The schools of thought usually are not identified by adding politicised labels. For instance, I would not support the statement "Prof X, a libertarian historian", or "Dr. Y, a left-wing thinker". The school should be identified, but not labelled.

Not only the issue with the embassies can be addressed, it should. It must be simply said that few Baltic embassies or consulates in some western countries, whose status was indefinite, were the only representatives of the pre-war Baltic states abroad during 1950s-80s, however, their presence had contributed to the thesis about legal continuity of there states that had been put forward in 1990s.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The labels are as reported in reliable sources, I have no idea if these labels are "politicised". Indeed, I'll think of some more appropriate words in regard to the embassies. Sokolov has an English language paper titled "The Baltic States in 1939–1945, in Russian Historiography: Counter-nationalism" beginning on page 93here. Perhaps your suggestion of creating a sub-article on Russian historiography has some merit. Do you have a view on the reputation of Sokolov? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sokolov has been criticized for a number of implausible claims which can easily be proven wrong, and either he is a very poor specialist or just intentionally making stuff (he has been accused in falsifications). He is clearly falling to the opposite of the "Nationalist-patriotic" camp, and certainly not the best source to neutrally and honestly describe "camps" in the Russian historiography. GreyHood ^Talk 21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I also find the language far from NPOV. There should always be more preoccupation with telling the facts, rather than pushing labels. The multiple mentioning of the word "illegal" and it's derivatives in the lead is rather funny and POVish. GreyHood ^Talk 21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess not having this talk page on my watchlist confirms I'm a newbie. Missed completely the discussion going on. Anyway, I've given my comments on the tone of the article, I leave the discussion to the more experienced editors. DS Belgium (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have some opinion on Sokolov, however, I would like to not express it because of lack of serious documentary evidences. The only thing I can tell for sure is that his views on the Soviet losses during the WWII is totally unsatisfactory and it contradicts to what both Russian and Western sources (e.g. Emmman, Maksudov etc) tell. In connection to that, I would prefer to see some review on his works made by some reputable Western scholar before using it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "The labels are as reported in reliable sources," If the sources use non-encyclopaedic language, we don't have to follow them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Casualty figures can be difficult to determine, however Greyhood mentioned implausible claims by Sokolov that can be easily disproved. Can you provide specific examples? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The totally implausible casualty figures, such as 26,4 mlns suggested by Sokolov, are easily disproved by the simple demographic data, and by the fact that it is impossible in an army that had just 27 mln persons actually taking part in any fighting, where many millions were left standing after the war, to have such casualties. At the same time he used a different method of counting for Germans, diminishing the number of their casualties. It is all either utmost non-professionalism or direct manipulation. GreyHood ^Talk 21:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, given the wide range of casualties with anything related to communist regimes, I am not surprised. But we are not citing Sokolov here for a WW2 article about some battle. Sokolov's views in regard to Russian historiography can be verified by other sources. For example David Mendeloff states: "A survey of the latest generation of history textbooks that are most widely used in Russia's schools reveals a view of the events of 1939-40 that is greatly at odds with the general historical consensus"[4] --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Sherlock's "History and Myth in the Soviet Empire and the Russian Republic" on page 233 provides an overview of the coverage of the Baltic states in Russian textbooks, showing the split within in Russian historiography and how it varies compared to the general historical consensus[5]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

While our doggie's veggies simmer

Like the ringing phone or simple itch, I find myself compelled to respond to Paul's above.

• Re "the Soviet authorities vacated the Baltics ahead of the German invasion..." do you really think this argument is serious?
  • There were no "Soviets" around to occupy, regardless, as the Soviets abandoned the Baltics ahead of the German invasion, that rather indicates the Soviet occupation concluded (at least temporarily), to be replaced by a German one of the Baltic states

• Re "The Baltics were neutral. If the Soviet Union had not occupied them, they would have remained neutral." If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour the US would be neutral, so what?
  • Really, you must read your history. You might even take Hitler at his word in launching his invasion of the Soviet Union was driven, in part, by the Soviet Union taking "spheres of influence" just a bit too far in the Baltics. So, at least your example does conclude, by your application thereof, that the Soviet Union did attack the Baltics and it wasn't "more of an intervention" as you have advocated in the past, so we are making progress on this point.

• Re "you also ignore the reality that the Baltic Waffen SS had as their ultimate goal driving both invaders from their homelands." I do not question that the goals were quite noble, however, the goals of Communists (declared goals) were even more noble. The tendency to judge about your compatriots based on their goals and about others based on their deeds is a pure example of double standards.
  • In the words of Count Shuvalov, "The historical mission of the Baltic provinces is to serve as a battlefield for the problems of the highest politics in Europe." Your qualification of "declared (!) goals" as being more noble than some of the smallest nations/peoples on the planet attempting to save their ancestral homelands for millennia from two predatory powers that outnumbered them 46½ to 1 (in 1939) is laughable. One must judge intent by results (mass murder, mass deportation,...) not by self-serving statements of motivation. What you are really doing is confirming that, in your view, Soviet pronouncements of saving people are more noble than Soviet actions murdering the same people. As far am I as aware, the Baltics harbored no territorial ambitions despite the USSR accusing them of same. You also ignore the Baltic peoples, drove out both the Germans and Russians before to gain independence, so there was a real basis for holding on to tenuous hopes regardless of circumstances.

(P.S.'s responce) The declared goal was to promote the World Revolution and to liberate the proletariat and peasantry. If we speak about the goal, not the implementation, it was really noble. Shuvalov's opinion is an example of realpolitic that had no relation to the subject of our discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) I find your perspective disturbing, when unfulfilled words, indeed words betrayed, appear to be more significant to you than a statement by the governor of the Baltic provinces which was as true then as it is today in the dichotomy of positions, official Russian versus reputable accounts of history. Shuvalov's comments speak to the heart of the "dispute" here. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Re "You parrot the official nationalistic Russian position" Leaving the blatantly insulting tone beyond the scope, let me point out that I can neither agree with this your statement nor refute it for a very simple reason. I do not read Russian nationalistic literature, because all nationalistic literature is equally disgusting. I have no idea on what they say, I build my argument based on the Western sources only, with, probably, minimal exceptions.
  • A shame, nationalistic literature is often quite interesting especially after you learn to separate polemics from the grains fof truth and how those grains are interpreted. I have to say, I know of no one who has used mainstream Western sources to come up with the Soviet invasion and occupation being "more of an intervention." I can't comment whether it is your selection or interpretation of sources which are (to my mind, admittedly) lacking.

(P.S.'s responce) To me, both Russian and Baltic nationalists are equally disgusting, and I found nothing attracting in their literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) This to me shows a lack of intellectual curiosity. Some of the most informative works I have read on the Soviet era are pure propaganda. I find such works (a) may bring up an event which I am unaware of and prompt further research as to the event and (b) always speak to the motivations of those for whom history serves politics. I find your profession of disgust an easy way out and a blanket position for denying any "nationalist" source you personally deeem as such. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Re "I don't meet you in some (fictitious) middle, you advocate for arbitration as a solution" This "middle" is not fictitious. For instance, I believe Lauri Malksoo expressed some ideas that are close to my vision of the subject. And I do not see what is wrong with arbitration (in a case if other means will prove unsuccessful).
  • Of course the middle is fictitious. Either the Soviet presence was legal or not; both Baltic and Soviet historiography agree on the position of the other: legal presence therefore not occupation; illegal presence therefore (illegal) occupation. You bring up irrelevant discussions of "legal occupations." That is a fictitious middle which does not exist in this scenario regardless of how you slice the intellectual pie.

(P.S.'s responce) Of course, it isn't. As I persuasively demonstrated (with sources), it is generally believed that "illegal annexation ≠ occupation", that both occupations and annexations can be legal or illegal. Therefore, even if the Soviet presence was illegal (which is probably the case), it was not necessarily occupation. I would add more to that, but I prefer not to do that, otherwise that would require me to comment on your directly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) And, again, there is no support for the Russian position (per Duma proclamation) that e.g., Latvia joined legally according to international law, and hence not illegal hence not occupation. There's no illegal displacement of sovereign authority but not occupation. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Re "what is not to be taken seriously? " The idea that any concession from your side will lead just to additional demands, and that the ultimate goal of your opponents is to re-write the article based on the concept of "voluntary joining...". That is a pure example of blatant assuming the opponent's bad faith, and I would prefer not to develop this theme any more.
  • I was merely relating past events on this topic. Those events are a reflection of the official Russian position on Soviet glory, so as long as there are editors who explicitly or empirically support that position, the sequence of events I describe will, unfortunately, follow as certainly as the day follows the night.

(P.S.'s responce) What relation does it have to me?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) "Voluntarily joining"=legal is, of course the official position of the Russian government. However, failing to achieve that, there is the advocacy for dilution of occupation (your efforts, specifically, such as your "more of an intervention") which serve to empirically make the Soviet Union to appear less bellicose with regard to its intent or actions regarding the Baltic states. Malksoo uses the word "crushed." Let's make sure we included that in the article narrative. Националист-патриот ►TALK 15:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Re "I'm not accusing you of anything..." Probably. Does that mean that the rest part of your post was addressed to someone else?
  • I was making the point I have no intent to do anything other than debate the subject as opposed to arbitration, your constant threats of enforcement actions against editors.

(P.S.'s responce) If someone takes a step that violates ArbCom decision, I simply have to inform them about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.s response) Threatening enforcement and debating content are mutually exclusive. I would not have had my stimulating debates with Vlad Fedorov if every other post by either of us was threatening sanctions against each other over our use of rhetoric in debate. If you want to debate, debate. If you want to breed acrimony, threaten sanctions. There's no middle ground. Националист-патриот ►TALK 15:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In summary, I suggest you to take some break. People are not so bad as they sometimes look. Just assume other's good faith, and everything will be fine.

• Quite honestly, I was on a break for a year and returned to (IMHO) a far more radicalized Wikipedia in the positive portrayal of the Soviet legacy, protecting communism from its detractors, etc., etc. Regardless, I am always glad to debate editors on the sources no matter their position, no matter what their self-characterization of their position. Obviously we did not agree on Edelstein, but at least that was still a debate of a source (which unfortunately did not ultimately apply).

(P.S.'s responce) Let's try to continue in this way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(P.V.'s response) Well, we currently appear to be going through one of our periodic rehashings which ultimately prove to be less than cathartic. Hopefully the current discussion over sui generis which is buried in there somewhere is of some constructive value. We could have that without all the rest of the crap. Personally, I'd archive everything here except for that thread and move forward. As for the tagging, I'm sorry, but when even Glantz (whose extensive use and command of Soviet sources is sometimes held against him) states it's a military occupation in every way, really, we're done. Националист-патриот ►TALK 15:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you don't mind me to wedge my posts after some of your posts that deserved a response, otherwise that would lead to dramatic inflation of the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll get back to yours in a bit. This might get interesting. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should an article retain a POV tag for the better part of one year? The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• No it should not, policy is quite clear and say it may not be used as a badge of shame. Policy also says if the discussion has petered out the tag ought be removed or if there is no section to discuss the issue on the article talk page the tag ought be removed. Whenever the tag has been removed per policy it has been reverted back in. I am of the opinion that after one year it really needs to be taken down. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• POV tags are intended to show that an ongoing discussion exists (whether titled "POV" or not - the existence of a clear conflict about POV is sufficient). Where no such ongoing discussion is apparent, the tag has outlived usefulness. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• RfCs are worthless and you just hit a hornet's nest with a stick. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It would not be the first time I have done so :o) But what of your opinion of a POV tag being on an article for the best part of a year? Do you not think it overly long? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is some discussion and the reasons have been clearly enumerated when asked for, then it is fine. Otherwise no. And with that, I end my participation in this mockery of a "dispute resolution" technique (no offence to you). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The last post have been made by Peters in late September, and in this post he promised to respond soon. In this situation it should be clear for every reasonable person that the discussion has not finished, so I simply do not understand the reason for this RfC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The last post was off-topic to the issue of the POV tag IMHO. The last substantive post was concerning Sokolov's views in regard to Russian historiography, which is supported by other sources. For example David Mendeloff states: "A survey of the latest generation of history textbooks that are most widely used in Russia's schools reveals a view of the events of 1939-40 that is greatly at odds with the general historical consensus"[6] Also Thomas Sherlock's "History and Myth in the Soviet Empire and the Russian Republic" on page 233 provides an overview of the coverage of the Baltic states in Russian textbooks, showing the split within in Russian historiography and how it varies compared to the general historical consensus[7]. It may well be that this seemingly intractable POV issue may be tied up with the educational backgrounds of some people. What do you think this "general historical consensus" is that is being referred too, Paul. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the views of the last author, who speaks about "coercive incorporation" more or less coincide with my views. The problem is, however, that another party insists on the concept of "military occupation", and any attempt to balance this POV are represented by them as pro-Soviet view pushing. That is the subject of the discussion, and that is why the neutrality tag should be in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments have been convincingly refuted before, Paul. There are many forms of occupation: military occupation stricto sensu, occupation following an armistice and occupation sui generis, for example. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

By correctly arguing that my viewpoint is close to the views of the author you have just cited, you thereby conceded that the my arguments haven't been refuted neither convincingly nor inconvincingly.

I would like to learn more about those "different forms of occupation" you are talking about. Could you please provide a reference to some secondary source that give definitions of these separate forms of occupation? I am especially interested to see a definition of the "occupation sui generis" you refer to. In addition, I have a feeling that you simply do not understand the meaning of the words "sui generis": the very meaning of this term implies that it cannot be applied to some general phenomenon, so no "occupation sui generis" as a separate form of occupation can exist.

In any events, despite the fact that yours arguments have been convincingly refuted you either refuse to accept my arguments, or are simply unable to understand them. The tag should stay, because the dispute has not been resolved. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, Volume 2 (1948), pp 926-927. This article is not about some general phenomenon, but specifically about the Baltic states, which Mälksoo explicitly defines as an "occupation sui generis". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What concrete piece of Guggenheim's text are you referring to? Could you please provide a quote to make sure we are talking about the same things?

Re general phenomenon, I am started to be little bit annoyed with this trick: when I speak about the Baltic states, you start to talk about "many forms of occupation" (which mean some general concepts), when respond in general you suggest to switch to the Baltic states. That is not correct. Let's finish with that ones and forever. Tell me please, what forms of occupation did you mean? Please, list them (provide a source, author, page, year, quote). Your refusal to do that will be interpreted as an indication of your inability to find an adequate counter-arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How many time do I have to post quotes before you accept what reliable source say? Lauri Mälksoo in Illegal annexation and state continuity p193: "The prolonged Soviet occupation of the Baltic States was an unorthodox occupation sui generis". What Wikipedia policy permits you to reject this? Unless you have a published source that directly refutes this, your argument has no basis. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with this text. However, never in this monograph (and in the scholarly literature as whole) can you find a statement that "occupation sui generis" is some separate form of occupation. Moreover, "sui generis" in this case means "some specific and unique form of occupation", or "pseudo-occupation", of annexation-occupation. Malksoo uses the term of occupation in the monograph devoted to the legal continuity of the Baltic states, and this term is supposed to demonstrate a legal basis for their state continuity. By no means that means that the USSR established and maintained some specific form of occupational administration in the Baltic states.

In connection to that, can you explain me, what concrete pieces of text have been added to in this article to demonstrate the fact that the occupation of the Baltic states by the USSR was a very unusual form of rule, and, along with few traits of occupation, this phenomenon had many traith of annexation? Maybe, the first sentence of the lede makes that clear?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you seem to think it is necessary to contain the entire topic in the first sentence of the lede, which is unreasonable. Igny himself has added a sentence about "occupation sui generis" in the lede[8], I've explained all this before so I don't understand why you continue to think the lede is POV bringing up all these old arguments. Krystyna Marek discusses Professor Guggenheim's classification of the different types of belligerent occupation here. Mälksoo also defines the Baltic case as a "occupation sui generis" (which is not a "pseudo-occupation" as your unsourced contention implies). --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Coming from rfc: Yes if the problem is unsolved.Curb Chain (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• IMHO until Russia describes the Soviet presence for the duration as an "occupation" the "POV tag" will likely remain. Mälksoo, per his "unorthodoxy," does not indicate it was not an occupation, he only recognizes unique aspects. Since "occupation" still applies, the only reason to keep the tag would appear to be that not enough merit is given to the (unsubstantiated at best) official Russian position. As for "and annexation" being added to the title, annexation is both superfluous and does not apply to the entire period of occupations. @Paul, the operative word is "occupation." Националист-патриот ►TALK 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The POV tag can be removed if there is no ongoing dispute about the POV issue. Editors who wish to keep the POV tag must provide a specific explanation of the reasons, including identifying the material in the article that is of concern, and they should include indications of what steps need to be taken to remedy the POV issues. Simply saying "this article is biased" is not sufficient: specific words, sentences, and examples must be provided. Editors who oppose the POV tag should feel free to remove the tag if specific rationale is not provided upon request. --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the reasons have already been provided. The fact that they have been diluted with numerous comments does not mean these concerns had been addressed. I already summarised the reasons in details, and I don't see I have to do that again. Just look through very recent talk page discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was not rendering an opinion on whether or not sufficient rationale has been providing for this article or not. I was simply outlining the general criteria to use to make the decision. (That is why my comment is titled "Comment" rather than "Yes" or "No"). If editors have identified specific sentences and words that they believe are POV, then, yes, the POV tag should be retained. The next step would be for all editors to work together to come up with improved text to make those areas more neutral. --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For the beginning, the first sentence of the lede is not neutral. The reasons have been (re)explained in my post on 18:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)---Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This RfC has a very generic statement: "Should an article retain a POV tag for the better part of one year?". Was it the intention that this RfC focus on a particular aspect of the POV issues of this article (e.g. the article lead)? If so, the RfC statement above should be amended to identify the specific POV issue. That way, when uninvolved editors arrive here from the RfC lists, the RfC statement will provide better guidance on where input is desired. --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if the issue was with the lede there are more appropriate tags that can be used, rather than an article wide tag which appears to be used for nothing more than a "badge of shame". This is evident by the fact that when we try to determine what the issue is we end up with pages of circular discussion without arriving at specific explanation of the reasons. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• In essence this dispute is about giving what a scholar describes as a Russian "nationalist myth" equal weight as what the same scholar describes as general historical consensus"[9]. Thus this tag is without foundation since the text already gives coverage with due weight to this Russian nationalist viewpoint. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Martin, but even the source you selected by yourself tells about "annexation of the Baltic states" (although the term "occupation" is also used). In connection to that, your persistent refusal to recognise the "general historical consensus" about the 1939-40 events is astonishing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, have you purposely WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? I've lost count of the number of times where I have explained to you the difference between annexation and occupation. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the difference in general? If yes, I believe I have already explained to you the difference between occupation, colonisation and annexation, and you failed to provide the description of alleged "different forms of occupation", as I requested. In this situation, the accusation in refusal to get a point should be addressed to you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided a description backed by source above[10], but it seems you have chosen to totally ignore it. This, it appears, is direct concrete evidence that WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I probably missed your last post, sorry.

I have looked through the Marek's description of the Guggenheim's views, and I have to concede that the division onto three different forms of occupation was not your own invention. I apologise for being wrong.

However, you seem to misinterpret the Marek's book. She speaks about belligerent occupations, namely:

1. Belligerent occupation sensu stricto;
2. Belligerent occupation following the armistice;
3. Belligerent occupatio sui generis.

I see some problems with the application of this classification to the Baltic states, because any belligerent occupation implies some bellum, however, consensus exists (that is shared by even Russian nationalists, afaik) that there was no belli between the USSR and the Baltic states.

In addition, is we focus at the #3 (because ## 1,2 are not relevant at all), we will immediately see that Guggenheim and Malksoo mean under occupatio sui generis two quite different things. Guggenheim defines the occupatio sui generis as a situation when a "debellatio has in fact taken place, but victorious powers refuse to go to the lenght of annexation"(p. 79, Op.cit) The example of the occupatio sui generis, according to Marek, was the occupation of the Third Reich by the Allies (ibid.), which, obviously, had nothing in common with the "occupation of the Baltic states". In other words, if we accept that "occupation of the Baltic states" was an occupatio sui generis with a reference to Guggenheim, we must concede that (i) there was a war between the Baltic states an the USSR, during which the latter conquered the former, (ii) the debellatio has in fact taken place in the Baltic states in 1940, and (iii) the USSR decided not to annex these states. Since (i - iii) are obvious nonsence, I conclude Malksoo haven't used the Guggenheim definition, and he meant something else. I do not have his monograph in my computer right now, so I suggest you to check if this monograph contains a reference to Guggenheim. In any event, the only way to resolve a situation is to directly address to Lauri Malksoo and to ask what concretely did he mean.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

PS I it necessary to add, Martin, that I appreciate your attempts to find new sources. The Marek's monograph is an interesting reading, and I believe it would be useful for me to read it in full.

Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

PPS I found more sources that apply the term "occupation sui generis" to post-war Germany (e.g. M Rheinstein - Michigan Law Review, 1948), and only one source, Malksoo, who applied this term to the Baltic states. We definitely need to get explanations from him, because there is absolutely no analogy between the Baltic states and Germany.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need any explanations. "Sui generis" means unique unto itself. With regard to the Baltics, they were unique, for example, in setting the precedent in international law for the first widespread non-recognition of occupation/forcible annexation. Nothing to do with the post-war German occupation "sui generis." (Therefore no analogy, as you stated.) Националист-патриот ►TALK 21:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I also initially though that the term "occupation sui generis" means refers to some event that is unique in its characteristics. However, Martin disagreed with that, and he claimed that occupatio sui generis is one of three forms of belligerent occupation. Moreover, he found the source that supported his claim. We cannot reject this source, which meets all RS criteria. The problem is, however, that the definition of the "occupatio sui generis" provided in this sources is applicable no the occupation of Nazi Germany, and, obviously non-applicable with the Baltic states. I have no idea how to resolve this problem, and I suggest to ask the author, Lauri Malksoo, the only person who applied the term "sui generis" to the Baltic states, to explain his point.

The problem becomes even more complicated taking into account that the source provided by Martin clearly says that the third type of occupation (occupatio sui generis) concerns only Germany and Japan (Op.Cit., p.79). In other words, we have three sources that claim somewhat mutually exclusive things (Guggenheim: "Occupatio sui generis is a specific form of occupation when, despite debellatio, no attempts to annex the occupied territory are taken by the occupying party". Marek: "Occupatio sui generis refers to Germany and Japan only, so it is unclear if we can speak about a third type of belligerent occupation". Malksoo: "Annexation of the Baltic states can be considered as the Occupatio sui generis". I have no idea on how to reconcile these three sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, my first point remains unaddressed: Guggenheim clearly speaks about belligerent occupation, but there was no bellum in 1940 between the Baltic states and the USSR. How the sources resolve this controversy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The view that "there was no bellum in 1940 between the Baltic states and the USSR" is a viewpoint based upon Soviet historiography, which has been disproved in scholarly literature. For example Marek in the same book cited above, after analysis of Soviet actions in the Baltic during 1940, concludes that "there is at every step a complete analogy with belligerent occupation in its classical form."(p567) --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's finish with one issue first. Do you maintain that the "occupation of the Baltic states" was the occupatio sui generis as Guggenheim defines it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what is written in a published source. On what basis do you refute this, you have not presented any sources so far that contradicts this. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't understand. What source do you mean, Guggenheim (who defined a separate form of belligerent occupatio sui generis as debellatio without annexation), Marek (who states that "occupation sui generis" is applicable to Japan and Germany only), or Malksoo (whose point is that the annexation of the Baltic states may be considered as occupation sui generis)? As you can see, they tell quite different things...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you "don't understand". You began this thread claiming there was only one type of military occupation, I provide a source from Guggenheim/Marek that demonstrates there are several different forms of occupation, the classic stricto sensu form and the sui generis form. Since Sui generis means "unique unto itself", the definition applied to Germany is not applicable to the Baltic states, and vice versa, obviously. Mälksoo asserts occupation sui generis in the case of the Baltic states. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Guggenheim provided a very strict definition of the occupatio sui generis, and you implied the same in your initial post. However, if we agree that occupatio sui generis are simple the Latin words to describe "some very unusual form of occupation" (in this particular case, annexation with traits of occupation), then the reference to the occupatio sui generis are simply misleading in the lede (because someone may confuse it with the Guggenheim's definition), and we need simply to explain that that was not an occupation from the commonsensual point of view, because it had some (many) traits of annexation, and there were no war between the Baltic states and the USSR. Essentially, that was my initial point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think "someone may confuse it with the Guggenheim's definition", since you did not even know of it until I pointed it out to you. But since you now claim "Guggenheim provided a very strict definition of the occupatio sui generis", please describe what this definition is here and now. And no, we cannot explain "that was not an occupation from the commonsensual point of view" because this is your synthesis, no source actually states this. I have already pointed out to you that Marek concludes on page 567 in regard to the events of 1940 that "there is at every step a complete analogy with belligerent occupation in its classical form.", and you continue to persist with the unsourced assertion "there were no war between the Baltic states and the USSR". This is what David Glantz (an author you apparently respect) states in the preface to Oleg Aleksandrovich Rzheshevski's book Stalin and the Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940: "the Red Army invasion of, and ensuing war with, Finland fits into a far broader pattern of belligerent Soviet behaviour during the initial period of the Second World War. This broader pattern included Soviet participation with Germany in the dismemberment of Poland in September 1939; its military occupation of the Baltic States in October 1939; and its invasion and annexation of Romanian Bessarabia in June 1940"[11], so please do not continue with what has been described by scholars as a Russian nationalist myth that the Baltic states were not militarily occupied in 1939. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some sources characterise the event as military occupation. However, other sources (non-Russian nationalist sources) speak about "annexation" or "incorporation", and you cannot arbitrarily select the sources that support your POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(indents getting a bit deep) We need to be clear about the application of occupation sui generis to a situation or situations versus those situations being some sort of de facto definition which can be reverse-engineered regarding what are common aspects of sui generis. Legally speaking there are no common aspects, period. The application of the term is in one direction only and, as Martin indicates above, any particular application of sui generis does not inhibit the occupation of the Baltics sui generis (over its term) being belligerent in every way just as if there had been a formal state of war declared—which lack thereof reputable scholarship has emphatically concluded is totally immaterial with regard to the bellicose nature of the military invasion and occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there was nothing in common between the Guggenheim's and Malksoo's sui generis. Therefore, it is necessary to agree that Martin's attempt to use "occupation sui generis" as some concrete and self-explanatory term is totally misleading, so this term should be used only in the same way Malksoo did. Namely, it is necessary to explain that this occupation was very unusual, and should be considered occupatio sui generis. It is necessary to write in the lede that "the USSR annexed three Baltic states as the Baltic SSRs, whose legal status within the USSR was identical to other members, however, illegality of the act of annexation allowed many authors to speak about continuous occupation of these states, which had been characterised as occupatio sui generis to demonstrate the uniquiness of the situation with the Baltic states". If this text is accepted (and I see no rational reason for not doing that), that would be a serious step towards removal of the POV tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be wilfully misrepresenting my arguments, I already explained to you I mentioned Guggenheim's sub-typing of "belligerent occupation" when you claimed there is only one type, a third type is occupation after an armistice. You are also synthesising two POVs that don't actually exist, that some sources speak of "annexation" to the exclusion of "occupation" and vice versa, as if the "annexation" view was one POV and the "occupation" view was another competing POV. This is a gross mischaracterisation of the sources, as generally the discussion of "annexation" is about the events of 1940 when the USSR forcibly incorporated the Baltics, and the discussion of "occupation" is generally about both the act of military occupation in 1939 and the status of the Baltic states during the period 1940-1991, and both terms co-exist in the sources side by side as they are about different aspects of the same topic. You contention that there are two competing POVs of "annexation" vs "occupation" is your personal synthesis. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I misinterpreted anything; however, I concede I could misunderstand something.

Re " I already explained to you I mentioned Guggenheim's sub-typing of "belligerent occupation" when you claimed there is only one type" I already agreed that the thesis about three types of belligerent occupation appeared to be not your invention, and apologised. What else do you need? However, since we need to move further, I started the discussion of the applicability of Guggenheim's classification. As you see, none of three forms of Guggenheim's occupations assume the attempts of the occupying party to annex the occupied territories, and Guggenheim speaks about that explicitly, in the case of occupatio sui generis. Since the attempts to annex the Baltic states did take place (although they were not internationally recognised), the Guggenheim's occupatio sui generis is not applicable to the Baltic states, moreover, per Marek, Guggenheim's occupatio sui generis is applicable'exclusively to Japan and Germany. Therefore, I agree with Vecrumba that we cannot use occupatio sui generis as some self-explanatory term.

Re "You are also synthesising two POVs that don't actually exist, that some sources speak of "annexation" to the exclusion of "occupation" and vice versa" I already presented the source that explains the difference between (inherently temporary) occupation and (inherently permanent) annexation. We discussed this source in details, and I do not understand what synthesis are you talking about.

Re " the discussion of "occupation" is generally about both the act of military occupation in 1939 and the status of the Baltic states " What status do you mean? A status according to the domestic Soviet laws, a status according to international laws, or the status according to the positions of some concrete foreign states? A spectrum of opinia was wide, and we need to explain everything.

In any event, I see that you constantly repeat the same arguments again and again, and force me to do the same. I see no reason to continue this discussion, and suggest unformal mediation. I suggest to start it in mid November. Do you agree? If I get no answer within a week after your next edit, I will assume that you rejected my proposal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, general explanations are nice, but your arguments over "inherently" anything applied to the Baltics is your personal opinion and not in keeping with majority Western portrayal of the Soviet presence regarding the Baltics, specifically. There is no need to explain Soviet law et al, it is already overly explained. Still occupied. The violations of international law (prior treaties) are voluminous. Certainly occupied. "Incorporated?" Still occupied. "Legal status same as other Soviet republics?" Still occupied. Националист-патриот ►TALK 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• RfC statement should be amended - The purpose of the RfC is to solicit input from uninvolved editors. The RfC statement must contain a brief, neutral statement of the issue. This RfC needs to be reworded: the current wording implies that input is desired in generic POV policy guidelines, when in fact the questions are about very specific sources, passages, and statements in the article. The RfC should identify the specific POV issues with the article. Leaving the RfC statement as-is is misleading to editors that will be arriving here from the RfC pages. --Noleander (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the conduct of some editors here, an RFC/U would be more relevant in this case. It appears to me that an article level tag is being misused when a more relevant section or inline tag could be used if necessary. The background to this is that a number of editors could not gain consensus for renaming the article despite a couple of move requests and an RFC, so now we have a perpetual dispute without those editors tagging the article actually articulating a specific explanation of the reasons or identifying the material in the article that is of concern beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So in that sense the current RFC is probably hit the nail on the head. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

...and this is why RfCs are absolutely worthless. Good day to all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, this is a typical situation when all users who are interested in this subject have already joined the discussion, so any RfC will be unable to provide serious fresh input. I think this is a typical situation when good faith editors resort to mediation (informal mediation, for the beginning). I am not ready to participate right now, and I propose to postpone the start of mediation to late November. Of course, such a mediation will have positive effect only if all participants are good faith users. However, since Martin expressed a concern that that is not the case, maybe, it is really reasonable to start with RfC/U first. In connection to that, Martin, can you tell us if you have some specific users on mind, or your statement had a general nature?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• (commenting as someone previously almost uninvolved here). This most recent discussion looks very much as WP:Consensus to remove the tag, and I do not see any valid reason provided to keep it, except maybe a couple of POVish words. Fixed. Biophys (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Do you imply that I, as one of major participants, agreed that the article has no neutrality issues, or that all my concerns had been addressed? If that is your claim than you definitely hadn't read the discussion carefully.

I would say, the opposite is true: despite none of my concerns have been addressed, all changes proposed by me have been either rejected or ignored. Thus, I argued that no Baltic governments in exile existed during the Soviet period, and even few consulates had unclear status. However, no attempts to fix this problem has been made. I've just fixed it, let's see how long it will last.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, as a user who has been deeply involved in EE disputes for last several years, you can hardly be considered as uninvolved here).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul has just given us a demonstration of how this POV tag is being, in my perception, tendentiously mis-applied[12], citing an issue of Baltic governments in exile that could have been flagged via an inline "cite" tag. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say, that is the example of the opposite: despite the fact that Martin agreed to fix the inaccuracy, he decided to do anything only after I removed an incorrect statement, and made that in absolutely unsatisfactory manner. His text says:

"Most foreign governments maintained that Baltic sovereignty had not been legitimately been overridden and thus continued to recognize the Baltic states as sovereign political entities represented by the legations appointed by the pre-1940 Baltic states, which were still functioning in Washington and elsewhere."

However, the source says something different:

"The position (that Baltic legitimacy had not been legilimately overriden- P.S.) was taken despite the fact that Estonia and Latvia were unable to sustain a government in exile during the period of the occupation. The United States, like some other powers, entertained Latvian and Estonian legations, but did not deem them to represent governments-in-exile. Although the United Kingdom recognized the incorporation only de facto, it entered into an agreement with teh USSR whereby Baltic state assets in UL banks were used to satisfy Britons who had had assets nationalized by the USSR"(p. 327)

In other words,

1. "USA and some powers" became "Most foreign governments"
2. "Latvian and Estonian legations" became "the Baltic states legations"
3. "entertained Latvian and Estonian legations" became "continued to recognize the Baltic states as sovereign political entities represented by the legations..."
4. "but did not deem them to represent governments-in-exile" became "continued to recognize the Baltic states as sovereign political entities represented"

At least 4 (four) POV charged misinterpretations of a single source!

Definitely, the tag should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the text you removed and added an additional cite. You should know by now I never add unsourced text. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not blame you in adding unsourced text, I blame you in misinteroretations of the sourced texts. I respectfully disagree with your last edits[13], because they reverted the statements that were directly supported by the reliable source and were quite relevant to the article. In connection to that, I respectfully request you to self-revert mutatis mutandi (since the new source you provided confirms that we can speak about "the Baltic states", not "Estonia and Latvia" only, the latter words can be replaced with the former). However, other statements are properly sourced and relevant, so they should stay.

Let me also point out that the habit to misinterpret a reliable source, that has been provided by yourself, and, after being caught in flagranti to reject the edits made based on your own source is a bad habit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Paul. I think you fight against consensus here (no one supported you in thread above). As about me, I never edited this article during last two years and made only 2nd comment per last thousand comments by others. Biophys (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Biophys, I think you do not understand the essence of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEMOCRACY. No matter how many participants support one or another point, much more important thing is the strengths of the arguments and the sources presented. For instance, taking into account that you presented no new arguments and no new sources, your own opinion has almost zero weight. No vote, please.

And, last but not least, I am not the only user who advocate this viewpoint. The fact that TFD, Igny, Greyhood and others have not been active here during last few days means nothing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing sources and not editors. I would not want to feel obligated to respond with my editorial opinions on some past positions which have been espoused within the community of editors you claim support your viewpoint. Your fulmination over no new arguments is utterly specious. Nothing has changed regarding the historical facts of the circumstances of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union. So there is no reason for arguments based on historical facts to change. Whereas--as we have digressed into personal perspectives--there appears to be a continuous flow of creative advocacy for less than occupation (your "more of an intervention"), unique occupation, not occupation for the duration or once annexed, etc., etc. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You started with "I would suggest discussing sources and not editors." and ended with "there appears to be a continuous flow of creative advocacy". Do you see any logic here? The only thing I advocate is the advocacy of what majority of reliable sources tell.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What a terrible shame you did not feel that way regarding majority of sources saying Holodomor was man made. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, once again our interpretations of what a majority of reliable source are or what they say (as in our Edelstein discussion) are more opposed than in congruence. My reference to "creative" is the practice of applying ostensibly reliable sources to a situation they are not specifically discussing and/or drawing conclusions which are not reflective of historical facts. Националист-патриот ►TALK 23:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious ref

In ref " Kavass, Igor I. (1972). Baltic States. W. S. Hein. " the weblink leads to text that does not seem to match its wikidia footnote; even the year is way off: 1956 vs. 1972. Please fix. Lom Konkreta (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice to new editors

PLEASE REVIEW THE ARCHIVES IF YOU ARE VISITING THIS TOPIC FOR THE FIRST TIME. MOST BASIC QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS STATEMENTS OF POSITION BY WESTERN, BALTIC, AND OFFICIAL RUSSIAN SOURCES HAVE BEEN COVERED THERE.

Thank you for the above message, and this is good advice, but not at all necessary for those who merely want to improve the grammar, fix the spelling or adjust the layout. Thank you all for tackling this sensitive subject! Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor grammar and style

It seems that the cross-POV edit wars have led to creeping deterioration of the text. See my pref note. Also I fixed a slightly illogical phrasing in the fist sentence. Next secons, and my eye has caught the sentence I have read three times and still cannot find neither subject nor predicate: Up to the reassessment of Soviet history in USSR that began during Perestroika, before the USSR had condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Germany and itself that had led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries.

So instead of posting at WP: RFC I would suggest to send it to the copyedit cabal. Lom Konkreta (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you are correct. Unfortunately copy-editing tends to change the entire timbre of content, so better any issues regarding representation of content be dealt with first. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Returning to several recent points by Paul regarding POV and content

Adopting the following as a step toward removing POV tag:

"we need simply to explain that that

• "was not an occupation from the commonsensual point of view,"
  • "commonsenual" = WP:OR. Regardless of sui generis it has all the characteristics of belligerent occupation (Glantz et al.)
• "because it had some (many) traits of annexation,"
  • "annexation" in the case of the Baltics is a continuation of occupation, as it continues the displacement of rightful sovereign authority; "annexed" or "incorporated" do not change occupation; only "joined" (of their own free sovereign will) renders the Soviet presence not an occupation--which is the official Russian position
  • there is no debate over the viewpoints of other sovereign states or in international law outside contentions of the Russian Duma that the "joining" was a sham
• "and there were no war between the Baltic states and the USSR."
  • the biggest POV load of [expletive] of it all, as you are using this to maintain less than an occupation (I keep having to bring up your morally grotesque "more of an intervention"); this is precisely the official Russian position, there is no reliable Western source that makes out Soviet actions to be less belligerent, less bellicose, because there was no "formal" declaration of war.

Regarding

"Yes, some sources characterise the event as military occupation. However, other sources (non-Russian nationalist sources) speak about 'annexation' or 'incorporation"',"

• none of these change the fact of occupation, occupation does not cease upon annexation; it does not cease upon incorporation; it ceases only upon the restoration of original sovereign authority or upon the willful joining by the sovereign authority (only happened in the Soviet and official Russian account)

And to

"Guggenheim clearly speaks about belligerent occupation, but there was no bellum in 1940 between the Baltic states and the USSR. How the sources resolve this controversy."

• There is only the "controversy" you appear to seek to create as if there is any genuine doubt regarding historical circumstances. No formal declaration of war is, again, immaterial to the act of occupation. There is zero controversy regarding this aspect of Soviet occupation unless you support the official Russian position.

If I keep repeating the same arguments, it is because nothing about the 50 years of Soviet presence in the Baltics has changed:

• there is no bridge between the Baltic and Soviet/official Russian positions; there is no in-between or continuum of scholarship, it's one or the other;
• there is no broad continuum of Western scholarship which exists across pretty much normal (my paraphrase of your "intervention", minor aspects of occupation, just like any other Soviet state, "incorporated", "annexed", etc.) to Malksoo's "crushed and occupied"; nor is there any need to explain such a non-existent continuum in detail.

You can come up with all the new arguments you can synthesize, they do not change the historical past. From Glantz to Malksoo, a belligerent occupation. An occupation kept in force by a massive military presence (including conducting later mass deportations to Siberia of men, women, and children) where Baltic citizens became a lower class as their homelands were "colonized" (Tsygankov, actual words are reduced to "colonial status"), sovietized, and russianized. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I am able to address all your above points. The problem is that almost all of them have already been addressed; therefore, I think the problem is that one (or both) parties are not going to accept the other side's arguments. Taking into account that any fresh input is unlikely, I suggest mediation. I have suggested if for the third time. Are you ready for that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you address my points by restating your personal viewpoint of all the many reasons why less than a real occupation (my paraphrase, feel free to correct me if you feel that is a misrepresentation). Your arguments don't hold water. That is not the basis for moving on to mediation. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We can always break down things to discussing one sentence at a time, phrase by phrase (per my dissection of what you postured as being acceptable content for the article to not be POV). A mediation will just be an excuse to rehash all of the above, yet again. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's try again (one more time).

Re ""commonsenual" = WP:OR. Regardless of sui generis it has all the characteristics of belligerent occupation (Glantz et al.)" "Commonsensual" is not OR. Occupation sensu stricto is something quite concrete, and it is regulated by various international conventions. For instance, Guggenheim lists three different forms of occupation, and one of them refers to something quite unique. Therefore, we can speak about the "occupation sensu stricto" and "occupation following an armistice". That is what I mean under "commonsensual" occupation, and that is how a reader will understand it.

Re belligerent occupation, I do not deny the fact that some sources do describe it in this way; however, other sources (majority of sources) use different terminology. Therefore, the reference to one more source that uses the terminology you like does not change a picture much. I propose to present both viewpoints - you reject the very opportunity that a second viewpoint exists. Therefore, it is your arguments that do not hold water.

Re Malksoo, please, re-read his works again. And, since both you and I can draw different conclusions from different pieces of Malksoo's text, below is a quote from his own explanation of his own position, made specifically for us:

" The Baltic Sattes were occupied in June 1940 and annexed (incorporated) by the USSR in August 1940. Thus, both occupation and annexation DID happen. The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities. For example, when 1980 Moscow olympic games took place, the olympic regatta took place in Tallinn. This cannot be a typical occupation situation.

However, it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant Western opinion and post-1991 restored Baltic States themselves, the Soviet annexation remained illegal. In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate. The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. If the article makes that aspect clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In fact, I would recommend such change because it takes more precisely (closer to the facts) into account the complex nature of the Soviet rule in the Baltic States."

What else do you need? Malksoo clearly says that in the case of the Baltic states both occupation and annexation took place, and we can speak about continued occupation, because in a context of state continuity illegal annexation equals extended occupation. Note, Malksoo discusses the occupation only in a context of state continuity. In other words, we can speak about occupation in a context of the state continuity of the Baltic states, and I never argued against that. Moreover, Malksoo explains that the fact of annexation did change the nature of occupation (although it would be incorrect to speak about any interruption in the state continuity of these states). That is exactly my point, which you, in your different posts, call synthesis, Russian nationalist POV pushing, original research, etc. Do you think that in this situation the accusations in original research or nationalist POV pushing should be addressed to you yourself?

Re "there is no bridge between the Baltic and Soviet/official Russian positions; there is no in-between or continuum of scholarship, it's one or the other;" Wrong. There is a Baltic position, position of different foreign states (which was different from state to state and from time to time), positions of scholars (western, Baltic, Russian), Soviet positions (different during 1950s-70s and during Perestroika) and official Russian position.

Re "From Glantz to Malksoo, a belligerent occupation." Glantz is an authoritative expert in the military aspects of the WWII, not in the legal aspects; Malskoo does not consider Soviet intervention in 1940 as a military operation at all. The only aggressive step, according to him, was a naval blockade.

Re "Baltic citizens became a lower class as their homelands were "colonized"" Probably. However, other sources tell that the real economic and political situation in these republics were much better than in other parts of the USSR, hence extensive influx of migrants. Was it possible if they had a colonial status?

I expect you to treat my arguments seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me re-iterate my major points points:

1. Both occupation and annexation did take place;
2. Annexation did change the nature of occupation;
3. Annexation (which was not recognized de jure by most foreign states) had no legal consequences prom the point of view of the Baltic state continuity.
4. All of that must be reflected in the article, which currently speaks about "continued military occupation of the Baltic states".--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Serious arguments will get a serious response. "No formal declaration of war", for example, is not a serious argument (i.e., it is a fact, it is even informative, but it does not affect the representation of historical circumstances). "Hitler occupied the Baltic SSRs," for example, is neither a serious argument nor a fact.

• On occupation, this is not an article about all the sorts of possible occupations there are, it is about three occupations by two powers in particular of three countries in particular. It is about the particular aspects of the particular occupations. Not about what other occupations are or are not. There are other venues for writing about occupations and international law.
• On terminology, you already have my response. None of the varied terminology changes the representation of occupation. "Incorporated", for example, does not mean "not occupied" or "less than an occupation."
• On Malksoo, once again on title, he is responding with respect to the Soviet Union, one of two occupying powers in the article. The Soviet occupation subtitles and article titles already include annexation during the first occupation, there is no issue here. As for "Malskoo does not consider Soviet intervention in 1940 as a military operation at all", I am gobsmacked by your interpretation, as Malksoo states the Soviets crushed and occupied the Baltics (his words). Glantz does not have to be an expert in international law to present the assessment of the occupation of the Baltics being military.
• On no bridge between Baltic and Soviet/official Russian positions. You mix apples and oranges. The position of scholars and states are immaterial to the point here, the two positions are:
  • Baltics joined legally (voluntarily) according to international law = no occupation
  • Baltics were invaded, occupied, forcibly annexed = occupation

The only slip-up was Russia's treaty with Lithuania prior to the dissolution of the USSR. All the positions you mention are regarding how outside parties chose to deal with the (usually acknowledged to be forcible and illegal) occupation.

• "Better off"
  • As compared to how they would have been without Soviet occupation and repeated deportations? We all know how "better off" that is, as we have the comparison of Estonia and Finland, neighbors which were on par prior to WWII. By comparison to Finland, Estonia lay in ruin after half a century of Soviet colonization. That the Baltics were in better shape than the rest of the USSR was only because they were freshly subjugated, with Latvia becoming the prime retirement destination for all the military of the USSR.

Present serious arguments and I will give them due consideration. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not find your responces serious. You started with some absurd statement about "No formal declaration of war" (did I ever speak about that? My point was that there were no real hostilities between the Soviet army and the armies of the Baltic states), so you seem to be arguing with somebody else..

Similarly, your answer about Germany is also just an attempt to divert a discussion in the wrong direction. Your syllogism contains the error in the predicate (Major premise:"German and Soviet rules were both military occupations", minor premise: "Both German and Soviet rule are described in the article", conclusion: "Consequently, only the term "occupation" should be used in the article", a typical example of circular argument ), and it is not a surprise that you come to the wrong conclusion.

And, finally, after I persuasively demonstrated that my viewpoint (in this particular case) almost coincides with the viewpoint of a reputable scholar, you preferred to totally ignore my major points. We definitely need in mediation, and by refusal to participate in mediation you just demonstrate the lack of confidence in the validity and the strength of your arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My refusal to participate in mediation is because I am tired of arguing the same facts for years upon years, repeating the process every time someone new comes along who insists the Soviet presence wasn't as bad as some would paint it out to be, viz. your "better off" puts you in that category.

• I quoted you on "and there were no war between the Baltic states and the USSR" and "but there was no bellum in 1940 between the Baltic states and the USSR", there was no war or declaration thereof--immaterial to occupation. No "real" hostilities? Glantz disagrees (military occupation). There is no difference to occupation whether it is actively resisted or not. Also, recall that the Soviet forces already stationed in the Baltic interior under the extracted-under-threat-of-invasion pacts of mutual assistance outnumbered the peace-time armed forces of the Baltic states.
• What makes my comment about three occupations by two belligerent powers a syllogism? Certainly they were all military occupations. Certainly they were all occupations for the duration. And in that context, "annexation" does not belong in the title because it applies only to the Soviet occupation (and did not terminate the occupation). There's no "circular" logic involved.
• And what viewpoint is it, exactly, that you are stating you persuasively demonstrated agrees with the viewpoint of a reputable scholar? Not Mälksoo. And I've already dealt with your sample content which would make the article less "POV".

To your main points (all with reference to Soviet actions and presence):

1. Both occupation and annexation did take place; — annexation did not terminate occupation; no one maintains the Soviet Union did not forcibly annex the Baltic states (except for the Russian Federation, its truth commission, and supporters of its/their position); we agree at face value but I suspect not in substance
2. Annexation did change the nature of occupation; — if you mean "civil" administration while occupied, that was a permanent fixture whether via the Soviet puppet governments of the purportedly sovereign Baltics or the Soviet-imposed post-annexation administration afterwards; that does not change the aspect of concurrent military occupation (see my comment below)
3. Annexation (which was not recognized de jure by most foreign states) had no legal consequences from the point of view of the Baltic state continuity. — neither occupation nor the act of annexation during occupation legally impacted continuity of sovereignty of the Baltic states; again, we agree at face value but I suspect not in substance
4. All of that must be reflected in the article, which currently speaks about "continued military occupation of the Baltic states". — there is a difference between what is informative versus what is directly pertinent; given the ongoing heavy military presence and use of military force in mass deportations, there is no basis for stating it was not a military occupation. Occupation—sui generis if you wish—characterized by a half-century of civil administration enforced by a permanent (massive) military force which acted against the civilian population during the period of occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Please feel free to continue to persuade me. We'll see how mediation goes at Holodomor, as it appears most parties are agreeing to participate. I reverted to my prior signature to not confuse matters there. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think we probably should finish with Holodomor first. And, for a while, all tags should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I've analysed your arguments and you appear to be delving into original research, using general definitions of "occupation" (as inherently temporary) and "annexation" (as inherently permanent) and applying them to the Baltic states in a novel way that has not been expressed in any source before, and using Malksoo's view somewhat out of context in support. There is no "spectra of opinion", this claim of yours that there is a set of opinions spanning between "annexation" vs "occupation" is your own artificial construct. There is no tension between these two terms, they live side by side. David Mendeloff states there is a general historical consensus with regard to the Baltic states. This general concensus he summaries:

"There is little doubt among most historians of the period, as well as among specialists of international law, that the Soviet actions in 1940 constituted annexation... There is also little debate among historians about the consequences of Soviet occupation on the ground. Massive political repressions ... followed the Soviet occupation in 1940. ... soon after Soviet reoccupation in 1944 a bitter partisan war ensued in all three countries that lasted nearly a decade"[14]

As you can see by Mendeloff, annexation and occupation are complementary concepts that discuss different aspects in the case of the Baltic states, "annexation" used in regard to international law aspects and "occupation" in regard to repression and partisan war, these are not competing POVs as you erroneously imply. This POV tag is baseless. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Malksoo, I think, your notion that I am "using Malksoo's view somewhat out of context in support" is a demonstration that you simply have nothing to counterpose.

You provided no full citation, so I was unable to verify it. Please, provide a full citation, and we will return to this issue later.

Meanwhile, I suggest to discuss the Baltic vs Russian viewpoints again. I found another source (PETER VAN ELSUWEGE. State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States. Leiden Journal of International Law, 16 (2003), pp. 377–388), which describes the two point of view on state continuity as the Baltic and Russian, and it is clear from this article that the world community does not recognise the Baltic position unconditionally:

"More than ten years after the Baltic states re-entered the international arena, discussions on their legal status continue to dominate relations with Russia. The main issue relates to the question whether the Baltic states are new or restored states. The answer relies on the legal analysis of the prewar incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. According to the generally accepted view this was an illegal act, both under customary and conventional international law.51 Even the Soviet Union accepted the illegality of the secret protocols to theMolotov-Ribbentrop pact and declared them to be null and void.52 This, however, did not change the Russian thesis that the Baltic states lost their status under international law as a result of their incorporation into the Soviet Union. Russia, consequently, refuses to accept the notion that the prewar Baltic republics continue to exist.53 The concept of state continuity constitutes, however, the basis of Baltic internal and external policy, and is mentioned in the constitutions of each Baltic republic. It is the driving force behind the Baltic quest for membership of NATO and the EU, distinguishing the Baltic states from other post-Soviet republics. The EU explicitly acknowledged this point of view when it recognized the re-emergence of independent Baltic republics and invited these countries as candidates for EU membership.

These examples demonstrate that the continuation of the prewar Baltic republics is much more complex than a mere restitutio ad integrum. At the very least, it is clear that the restitution of independence after a period of fifty years requires additional measures. It can be concluded, therefore, that the issue of restoration of the international legal personality of the Baltic states is sui generis, with both legal and political dimensions."

In other words, this source forced me to re-consider my viewpoint: whereas I though, following the claims of Martin and Peters, that the thesis about state continuity is being fully recognised by western scholars, I realised now, that we can speak about the "state continuity sui generis", and that the Baltic views and the western views are not the same.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, this is nothing new and demonstrates how you appear to read into text what you want to believe. This text states "According to the generally accepted view this (incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union) was an illegal act, both under customary and conventional international law" but you draw the conclusion "state continuity is not fully recognised by western scholars". This is a discussion that belongs in the continuity article and is unrelated to this POV tag. Your conclusion "that the Baltic views and the western views are not the same" is not supported by the text either, which states that the EU explicitly supported the Baltic view. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

One more straw man argument. I do not claim (and never claimed before) that the annexation was made in accordance with those times laws. However, as you can see from the source presented by me, different parties draw different conclusions from this obvious and indisputable fact: the author speaks about the Baltic position, but he does not support it fully. In connection to that, the structure of the article should be modified: we should speak about (i) the Baltic position (unconditional state continuity; restoration of pre-WWII states), (ii) late Soviet/Russian position (no state continuity; secession), and (iii) positions of various states and scholars (partial support of the Baltic position, but taking into account political realities; state continuity sui generis). That would more or less adequately reflect the structire of the article I quoted.

In any event, we have one more argument for POV tag, and one more subject for future mediation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an article on state continuity. That is not this article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, then why a significant space is devoted to the Soviet/Russian position, and no space to the Baltic position? The source I quoted clearly states that such a position exists, and the author (being a third country's scholar) does not identify his position with the position of the Baltic states (and, obviously, with the Russian position). However, the article in its present form creates an impression that the Baltic position is totally shared by the international community, which, apparently, is not the case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, as Peters states we already have an article on state continuity. When Peter Van Elsuwege states "continuation of the prewar Baltic republics is much more complex than a mere restitutio ad integrum" he is saying that while the West fully accepts that the Baltic states are restored states, full restitutio ad integrum is impossible as to would have entailed the mass expulsion of occupation era settlers as the strong precedents of Alcase Lorraine, Czechoslovakia and Austria showed. The reason being that Russia in 1991, unlike Germany at the end of WW1/WW2, was not a defeated and crushed state and it objected strongly to any such expulsion, also some scholars claimed that humanitarian law overrode the rights of the restored state in this case (see this explanation). However this article is about the history, and there is only two significant viewpoints identified, the general historical consensus shared by both the West, the Baltics and the Russian "liberal democratic" camp, and viewpoint termed by some scholar as the Russian "patriotic nationalist" viewpoint. David Mendeloff identifies these two camps:

"A survey of the latest generation of history textbooks that are most widely used in Russia's schools reveals a view of the events of 1939-40 that is greatly at odds with the general historical consensus"[15]

--Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Run out of arguments Paul? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Just a little bit busy. Meanwhile, I am waiting for your responce on my post I made on 04:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you appear to have a tendency to side step the issue and take a different tact when it suits you. Let's stick to the crux of the matter rather than diverting our attention to something else. You claim that there are three positions, the Russian thesis, the Baltic thesis and the view of the international community. But it is the case that the international community has accepted the Baltic thesis, as these scholars state:

• Dirk Crols in The Baltic States and their region: new Europe or old?, page 192: "the then European Community (EC) and its member states accepted the Baltic thesis of legal continuity"[16]
• Lauri Mälksoo in Illegal annexation and state continuity, page 203: "The Baltic claim has always emphatically been one of the State continuity, and third States, while accepting the identity of the Baltic States, seem to have accepted the Baltic thesis of the prolonged Soviet occupation"[17]

The fact is that no other country has explictly adopted the Russian thesis, in fact some scholars have even derided it as a myth. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)