Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Occupation of the Baltic states. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

SYNTH and infobox

The infobox perfectly illustrates the synthesis of several different and easily distinguishable events into one article, events that share just one common characteristic, that some scholars applied one particular term to the events, which is the occupation of the Baltic states.

Soviet invasion and annexation of Baltic in 1940 (Baltic vs. USSR)
German invasion (Germany vs. USSR)
The infobox does not mention the Holocaust (collaboration of the Baltic and German nationalists in extermination of the Jews), even though it should
Soviet advance of 1944-45 (Germany and some Baltic nationals vs. Soviet Union and some other Baltic nationals)
Resistance to the Soviet rule after war (Baltic vs. USSR) which is portrayed as part of the Cold war without references

Currently the infobox portrays the events as fighting between 3 belligerents as if the actions the Baltic nations were independent of the decisions and actions of Germany and USSR, and moreover it directly implies that the fighting with the Baltic countries resulted in the USSR collapse (I wonder why not the collapse of the Third Reich?).

Is there a possibility to divide the infobox into several parts describing the different phases of the "occupation"? (Igny (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

How should the infobox mention the Holocaust? By including the Jews as the fourth belligerent? That would be pretty WP:OR as Eastern Front (World War II) and analogous infoboxes list nothing of the sort.

It is unnecessary to cite the obvious fact of the occupation of the Baltic states being part of Cold war its main article discusses the Singing Revolution and the Occupation of the Baltic states article cites three sources mentioning the Cold war.

Here is what the Template:Infobox military conflict has to say about the belligerents: "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles." In other words, it is not standard to present even a third combatant party, furthermore fourth or fifth ones. In the events you have listed above, I can still spot only three distinct parties as already listed in the infobox. Or did I miss one?

Regarding 'collapse of the Soviet Union' - It does look a bit far out (although I sincerely do not see the connection with the collapse of the Third Reich) while entirely relevant. The essence of the collapse of the Soviet Union was its breakup into independent states, was it not, and the Baltics were the forerunners there. You are, however, welcome to propose an alternative expression of the outcome. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I may suggest Dissolution of the Soviet Union which ought to be split from the current location. The Baltic states may have been the first, but they were not the cause of the dissolution, as one historian put that, Baltic states did not liberate the USSR, the USSR liberated them (let them go) in 1991. Why territorial gain of Vilnius isn't mentioned in infobox? Is there a map comparing territories of the Baltic states in 1938, 1946 and 1991? (Igny (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

I do also think that the infobox in the current form doesn't make much sense. On the 'collapse of the Soviet Union', as if the result of the occupation of the Baltic states was the collapse of the USSR? It reads like the USSR collapsed because it occupied the Baltic states.--Termer (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility for the result could be Independence of the Baltic states or some such. You are so pre-occupied with mourning over your sad past that you forgot to create an article about your glorious present. (Igny (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks Igny for the idea. Just that the reason I haven't made an article about my glorious present on wikipedia has nothing to do with forgetting or being pre-occupied with mourning, you got that all wrong. I'm simply not too sure if an article about Termers glorious present would comply with WP:Notability guideline.--Termer (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Infobox: could you be more concrete, what does not make sense?

Re: Independence of Baltic States as the Result: Exactly the opposite is true. The three states were already independent before the occupation which resulted in the loss of independence of Baltic states for fifty years.

Re: glorious present: The independence of nations is not something glorious to highlight but their normal condition. Or how would Independence of Russia sound? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Infobox: could you be more concrete, what does not make sense?

It has to be split into parts to cover the different phases of the "occupation" with different combatants, different time intervals, different results. Imagine to combine two different battles with different results with different combatants into one infobox, even if the battles belong to the same war, it does not make sense. Here it is not even a war of the Baltic states, who were just pawns in a bigger game. To summarize, the current infobox shows the POV of a pawn in a chess match of several games between different opponents with different outcomes for the said pawn. And the infobox tries to portray the role of a pawn as if it were very important in the outcome of the games. (Igny (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

RE: split: Which fields should be split or are you talking about adding several infoboxes? Either way this leads directly to the question why should there be one article for the different periods of occupation anyway? Because if there is one occupation, it should be possible to describe it in one infobox. Even the Eastern Front (World War II) and World War II articles, which deal with much more complicated conflicts, have a single infobox each, with a single field for strengths, casualties, outcomes etc. for each belligerent party. The infobox merely summarises the article. If the infobox is SYNTH then so is the whole article and that is what we should discuss. It is normal to list different strenghts for different moments in time (if it absolutely necessary, you are welcome to introduce such numbers) and to indicate belligerents that switched sides (which is not the case here). Beyond that, it is just undermining the integrity of the article.

RE: pawns: Sure, the Baltics were pawns in the WWII, which does not stop us from having articles on what happened with those pawns during the tradeoffs. The importance of a conflict is exactly what an article and its infobox should present. Sure there were intermediate outcomes (just like Operation Barbarossa had an entirely different outcome than the Battle of Berlin), which still lead to a single outcome.

Re: not even a war of the Baltic States: I get the feeling that you are in a wrong talk page. This is not Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#Baltic States but Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States which is about the military control of the Baltics by foreing powers. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "not even a war of the Baltic States". Correct. In connection to that, it is unclear for me the reason for the "belligerents" section here. Moreover, I cannot understand why is the infobox organized in a military campaign's style.

Re: "which is about the military control of the Baltics by foreing powers." I am not sure it is correct. The Baltic states were not under the "military control by foreign power" in 1945-91. That would mean that this territory was ruled under a separate occupation law, and it was legally separated from metropolia. In actuality, the same rights were granted to the Baltic citizens as to other Soviet citizens, and the republics as whole had the same legal status as other Soviet republics did. This was in a big contrast with the legal status of the Baltic states under Nazi (that fits all criteria of military occupation). Therefore, although it is probably correct to speak about illegal annexation, of Baltic states by the USSR, the statement that they were under military control of a foreign power in 1945-91 is misleading and reflects some national POV. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so 1945-91 was "illegal annexation" and 25+ international and scientific sources above calling it occupation are all "national POV"? Just give it up already and accept that your post-Soviet POV will always remain fringe views. --Sander Säde 20:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, 1945-91 was not a period of "illegal annexation". Illegal annexation took place in 1940, so during post WWII period these states were the annexed ("forcibly", "illegally", whatever) states. I hope you are able to see a difference between the status of, e.g. Estonia in the USSR and, e.g. Moravia in Nazi Germany. I believe the sources presented by me in the previous section may serve as a proof for my "fringe" views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see 25+ sources ranging from 1945 to modern day here. And majority of these are solid sources - peer-reviewed scientific magazines, monographies and so forth - not Soviet sources from the height of the Cold War (I consider any such sources to be worthless for Wikipedia, as they are propaganda rags when it comes to history). There is no doubt that majority of the historians in the world see both 1940 and 1945-1991 as Soviet occupations. And as for the just criminally wrong "cannot occupy the country you already annexed" meme, consider this: a thief steals a watch. Another thief fancies the watch and grabs it for himself. First thief notices it and steals the watch back. Is the thief now the lawful owner of the watch, as you cannot steal something that already belonged to you? --Sander Säde 21:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the sources provided by me were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, so they are at least equally reliable.

Secondly, we probably discuss two quite different issues: the way the countries were incorporated into the USSR and their status there. Of course, initially the Baltic states were annexed peacefully de jure and forcibly de facto. I believe the analogy with occupation of Czech republic by Nazi Germany would be more or less valid. In 1944, the territory of these states (although not necessarily the states themselves, because the Baltic stated hardly existed by that moment) was militarily occupied by the USSR. The sources meticulously collected by you perfectly confirm that, and I do not question, and I have no desire to question these obvious facts.
However, my point was quite different. According to the Webster dictionary, The word "occupation" has four different meaning, one of them is relevant to our case. "Occupation" means "The control of a country by military forces of a foreign power", in other words, it implies a presence of military administration that acts under some occupation law. Did that take place in the Baltic states in 1940 and in 1944? Probably, "yes" in 1940 and definitely "yes" in 1944. Did that situation last until 1991? Definitely not. The states were converted into Soviet republics and the same rights were granted to their citizens as to all other Soviet citizens.
In other words, your sources confirm that the military occupation took place in 1940s, however, these sources do not confirm that that situation lasted until 1991. Therefore, they cannot serve as a support for your claims.
The anecdote on thief and the watch (or a wallet) has already been presented here at least twice, however, I propose to use more relevant analogy. Consider the Roman Empire. Obviously, a major part of her territory was occupied by Rome, but can you tell me how long this occupation lasted? Until the split of the Roman Empire? Until dissolution of the Western Roman Empire? Until Turkish conquest of Istanbul? No. The Roman provinces were occupied territory until ius civile had been granted to the occupied territories. By doing this, Roman authorities granted Roman citizen rights to the population of new territories, so they became Roman citizens, and the territories, accordingly, got a status of annexed territories.
I believe the 1945-91 status of the Baltic state can be much better illustrated by this analogy rather than by the funny, but fully amateurish considerations about a thief and the wallet.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. After looking again at the list provided by you I found that three sources (Hiden, Verschik and Rebas) do speak about the period of 1940-1991 as the period of "occupation", so they can formally be used as a support for the ideas you are pushing. However, Verschik seems to write about Yiddishism, she publish her article in the linguistic journal, so she, as a non-specialist simply didn't pay a due attention to usage of correct terminology. Other two scholars also seem to use "occupation" as a colloquial name for the period that started with Soviet occupation of the Baltic state and lead to their forcible incorporation into the USSR. Noone of there scholars wrote openly and clearly that during 1950s-80s the Baltic states were under a control of the Soviet Army (or some other form of foreign military administration). I believe, the article in its present form deserves the OR tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but latest of your three sources is from 1980. The lack of even remotely modern sources is a very clear indicator of fringe views. And as a Soviet army left Baltic states in 1991, then military occupation did end then. Compare it to post World War II Austria - occupation by allies officially ended in 1955 when their troops left. That despite the fact Austria had elected its own government in 1945, which had far more liberties then "governments" of Soviet republics.

Sources I linked above were to illustrate that a lot of scientists see 1945 events as a start of the second occupation (or continuation the first occupation). All of those sources describe it so. I did not look for more sources beyond the first twenty (and later pre-1950 ones demanded by Igny), but it should be easy to find hundreds of sources from solely scientific journals, highest quality source that Wikipedia can have. As an icing on the cake, did you know that the Council of Europe passed resolutions denouncing the Soviet occupation of Estonia in 1960, 1963, 1983 and 1986 [1]?

And yes, the thief story was amateurish. I planned to added sentence saying that I am ashamed for humanity, because I have to to as low as using children's stories to adult people, who should grasp realities of the world without them, but decided it would push borders of civil behavior. However, your Rome-related musings are completely off-mark. Rome considered occupied territories to be annexed and happily joined the Roman empire, exactly the same way Soviet historiography describes how Baltic states happily joined Soviet Union. In reality, "happy" annexed territories had one revolt after another, constant Roman military presence was required to keep them as a part of the empire. See Jewish–Roman wars for a very well-known example. In the same way there was a constant resistance in Baltic countries. How long would have Soviet puppet governments lasted if not for constant Soviet military presence? Another fun tidbit, butchers of Operation Priboi got Order of the Great Patriotic War in 1949! Armed resistance continued well into the fifties, last of the forest brothers was killed in 1978.

Unless someone can come up with modern sources showing that "annexation theory" has a wide support among scientists (especially historians and scientists of law and political science), it will remain a fringe theory. In the same way creationism is, despite their claims of wide support of creationism among scientists (see Project Steve).

--Sander Säde 09:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, citing old woks does not constitute adherence to fringe theories per se. For instance, many Wikipedians extensively cite and quote Robert Conquest's works, however it is not a reason to accuse them in fringe theorisation. Please, familiarize yourself with WP:V and WP:FRINGE for details.

Secondly, your sources confirm that in 1944 the Baltic states had been occupied by the USSR, however, it is unclear from these sources how long this military occupation lasted. You analogy with Austria does not work. American troops are still being stationed in, e.g., the FRG, however this does not mean that Germany is still an occupied country. Similarly, the fact that the US has military bases in many European countries does not mean that the Europe is occupied by the US. You seem to mix two things: the presence of the foreign military troops on some country's territory and governance of some country by foreign military administration. These are two quite different things.

Thirdly, politicians' opinion should be used with cautions. I believe you perfectly know that politicians' opinion can be politically motivated (e.g. Churchill's de facto approval of Soviet occupation of Poland). Let's stick with reliable secondary sources.

Fourthly, the fact that some guerilla warfare takes place in some territory does not mean this land is under military occupation. Are Basque country or Northern Ireland occupied, and were they occupied during 1950-90?

Fifthly, I do not push the "annexation theory". Conversely, you are pushing a theory according to which military occupation of the Baltic states by the USSR lasted until the USSR's dissolution. Please provide the sources that clearly and unequivocally confirm that, namely, that during 1950-91 the Baltic states were run by some Soviet military administration, and this rule was being performed based on the legislation separate from that in other Soviet republics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. I believe Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia better fits the criteria of occupation: the USSR militarily invaded the country (without attempting to annex it), established a new administration and stationed military troops there. However, even in that case noone claims occupation lasted until the "velvet revolution": soon after invasion of Czechoslovakia a new domestic civilian administration had been established there. Although one can argue that that administration was a puppet regime, it was a their own civil, not foreign military administration, so CzSSR didn't have an occupied state's status.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

here we go again, -Paul Siebert: "The control of a country by military forces of a foreign power", in other words, it implies a presence of military administration that acts under some occupation law. It doesn't imply anything like you suggest. And your original theory about "civilian administration taking over-occupation finished" is completely flawed. First of all, how long would have those puppet civilian administrations lasted if they didn't rely on the Soviet military? 1 day perhaps? Or another way to put it, if the Soviet occupation ended after the civilian administration was set up, so would have Nazi occupation ended after the civilian governments started working during nazi occupation, no matter if in the Baltic states or Norway etc. Civilian Quislings only rule because they control a country by military forces of a foreign power.--Termer (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Re:First of all, how long would have those puppet civilian administrations lasted if they didn't rely on the Soviet military? 1 day perhaps? It should not be too hard to find an RS supporting such an obvious statement with an explanation why the Baltic administrations were considered puppet, and why existence of such evil governments proves the act of occupation. (Igny (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

I'd suggest to everyone concerned about this article to read on the differences between annexation and military occupation. (Igny (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Exactly. The question is whether the Baltic states were ruled by some military administration that treated them as foreign territories, or they were de jure incorporated into the USSR? The answer was obvious: according the Soviet domestic law made no difference between, e.g., Estonia and, e.g. Belorussia, in other words, this territories were not militarily occupied. The fact that this annexation (or, according to other sources, incorporation) was a result of military occupation is recognized by majority (if not all) western governments, however, that does not mean that the colloquially used term "Soviet occupation" can be applied to the whole period of 1945-91.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Indeed, the fact that the Baltic states consider themselves "occupied states during the Soviet period" [2] is indisputable. It should be mentioned in the article, however it would be a local POW pushing to build the entire article based on that concept. I would say that the most correct would be to speak about forcible military occupation and subsequent annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union. By the way, that is almost exactly what reliable sources say (se, e.g. Kavass, Igor I. (1972). Baltic States. W. S. Hein. http://books.google.com/books?id=_LRAAAAAIAAJ&q=Baltic+states&pgis=1#search_anchor.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting simply ridiculous. There are literally dozens of sources from all over the world, describing Baltic states as occupied until 1991. Opponents of that view have not been able to come up even a single peer-reviewed modern source with the "happy annexation" view. So what do they do? Word games and demanding more sources for occupation?! How dumb can this get? Again, I am reminded how creationists demand transitional forms and when they are given more and more evidence, they cover eyes and chant "la-la-la-I-do-not-see-this!"

Let's get facts straight:

There are more than twenty sources above from scientific journals and monographies describic Baltic states as occupied until 1991, including interpreting 1945 events as second Soviet occupation or reoccupation. Finding more sources is not a problem.
There is not a single modern peer-reviewed source that describes the opposite.
Therefore, describing it as anything else but occupation is a violation of core Wikipedia principles and constitutes POV-pushing and simply vandalism.
Alternate, fringe viewpoints are already present in the article. Trying to present them as majority viewpoints is unacceptable in light of multitude of sources opposing those viewpoints.

--Sander Säde 09:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "There are more than twenty sources". Overwhelming majority of sources presented by you do not confirm that the regime of military occupation lasted until 1991. The majority western sources speak about forcible military occupation and subsequent annexation (or incorporation) of Baltic states into the USSR, although consider that act illegal.

Re: "There is not a single modern peer-reviewed source that describes the opposite." Parrott, Bruce (1995). "Reversing Soviet Military Occupation". State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 112: "Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia all understand themselves to have been, above all else, occupied states during the Soviet period." "Though the annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized by Western powers..." In other words, this contemporary source (that was introduced into the article not by me) clearly states that (i) the Baltic states were occupied; (ii) they were annexed, although the Western powers did not recognized this annexation as legal; (iii) the Baltic states themselves consider themselves as occupied until 1991. That is exactly what I am saying.

Re: "Therefore, describing it as anything else but occupation is a violation of core Wikipedia principles..." If you see any signs of vandalism, please report to WP:ANI, because all vandals must be blocked.

Re Fringe. Sources, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So when did the "military occupation" end? The Austrian example above (which you conveniently misinterpreted) had military occupation officially until the Allied troops left, despite the existence of freely elected government for majority of that time. And let me remind you that Baltic republics had puppet Soviet governments installed already in 1940 - and these governments existed in exile all through the war. According to your logic, 1945 events couldn't have been an occupation - and yet a multitude of peer-reviewed sources (including law magazines!) treat 1945 as return of Soviet occupation. It seems that claiming "happy annexation" in face of dozens opposing sources is simply original research/POV-pushing and nothing more.

And finally, a source! Fifteen-years old as modern... okay, at least it is a source, finally. However, it doesn't actually support your claims. The next two paragraphs after "Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia all understand themselves to have been, above all else, occupied states during the Soviet period." are author's text, describing occupation of Baltic states. And "the Western powers did not recognized this annexation as legal" - yes, because they were considering it to be an occupation. There is a list of countries in the article who did not recognize Soviet incorporation of Baltic states into the Soviet Union - and list of those who did. Guess which list is far, far longer? Many legal entities (such as Council of Europe, European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council) treat the period 1945-1991 as Soviet occupation, what non-Soviet and non-Russian legal entities consider the incorporation legal? Other that the anecdotal evidence from 1950's Belgium marital court, that is.

I missed Igny's request for sources about puppet governments. Perhaps he could have done a simple Google Scholar and Books searches on the topic, but to help him get started on research, here are some searches with dozens of sources (I see no point to list every source; we would go down the road of "Human hand has five fingers^{[citation needed]}"): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. And just so it couldn't be claimed they are all about 1940, here is one extra source, "..were persuaded to become members of Zhdanov's Soviet puppet government in 1945."

Finally, fringe. Quoting WP:FRINGE, "Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence." Well, how about the fact that you are unable to provide decent scientific and legal sources supporting your views, while there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for other views?

--Sander Säde 09:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A quote by John Laughland with regard to the fringe theories.

This theory of occupation is, quite simply, a lie. Occupation is a specific situation in international relations when one country dominates another by installing troops on its territory. The laws of occupation are laid out at length in the Hague Conventions of 1907. When a country is occupied, political and military power lies with the occupying authority. The citizenry remains legally powerless: it remains a separate legal category from the occupier. By contrast, when a country is incorporated into another state, its citizens become citizens of the incorporating state.

This is what happened to the Balts. They were Soviet citizens throughout the period 1944-1991. No doubt many of them resented this status and wanted to change it: this is what national liberation movements are about. But it is much a lie to say that these countries were occupied as it would be to say that Flanders is currently “occupied” by Belgium.

Taken from his blog (Igny (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

I deleted the text I wrote as a reply before posting. It would have been just uncivil. However, I think your cause might be served better, if you don't quote a blog by John Laughland to support your views. If you didn't know him before (I did), you may want to read up on him a bit. --Sander Säde 13:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand how his views are pissing you off, but I would take his word over yours on many issues in politics and international law. (Igny (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Sure. Just let me point out that unlike what he blogged, Hague Conventions 1907 doesn't have anything about citizenship. And I really don't think that anyone can deny the fact that 1940-91, in Baltic states "political and military power lied with the occupying authority". --Sander Säde 15:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No one argues that in 1944 the territory of Baltic States was militarily occupied, and that, for some period, the regime of military occupation existed there. I don't think also if someone can believe that new civil authorities were formed following internationally recognized legal procedure. Since the new authorities were established under auspices of military administration, and de facto were a result of the latter, some sources colloquially extend the term "military occupation" to the whole Soviet period. However, that is not what the serious sources, that paid significant attention to the analysis of the subject, do.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Let me re-iterate the major thesis. The present dispute is about the difference between the military occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation. The international laws clearly distinguish between these two since the end of the Napoleonic war, so I simply cannot understand why the article (that in actuality, covers both military occupation of Baltics by Germany or USSR and (much longer) period annexation by the USSR) mixes these two quite clearly different categories. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Paul, but what "serious sources"? The 1995 book that doesn't actually support your POV? Let's face it, international scientific peer-reviewed law journals call it occupation without any issues, international legal entities call it occupation, scientific monographies call it occupation - I think we can safely say that majority view is that Baltic states were occupied from first Soviet invasion up to 1991. We have loads of sources supporting that view.

And what is with the fixation with Webster definition? Last time I checked, Webster doesn't have any authority in the world of jurisprudence. But if you insist on dictionary definitions, see Random House Dictionary - and notice that all 3-7 apply. However, you want an actual definition, let's use the real law - Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Hague, October 18, 1907. "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." Nothing about civilian government. Nothing about incorporation. Nothing about status of the citizens.

It is undeniable that Soviet forces were in control of Estonia - "authority has been established and can be exercised". Existence of civilian government is completely irrelevant - in the same way that it was irrelevant during the military occupation of Austria, which you so studiously ignore. Legal status of citizens is irrelevant. What matters is that Baltic states were under Soviet control, which was enforced by military. Hence, occupation.

--Sander Säde 09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Random House Dictionary - and notice that all 3-7 apply." Let's see.

"3. possession, settlement, or use of land or property." Obviously, refers to possession by a person, not a state. Does not apply

"4. the act of occupying." I never argued that in 1944 the act of occupation took place. My major point is that that occupation was followed by almost immediate annexation or incorporation into the USSR.

"5. the state of being occupied." see above.

"6. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory" Of course, the control of the Baltic states was seized by force. How does it contradict to what I am saying?

"7.the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces" Again, that is exactly what I am saying: occupation of the Baltic states lasted only until they were under a control of the Red Army, and ended with annexation when civilian administration had been established there.

Re: "Article 42" The article clearly tells about "the authority of the hostile army", and explicitly states that the occupation lasts only until such a control lasts. You correctly noted that the article says nothing about civilian administration. That means that we cannot speak about any occupation of some territory/country when it is being governed by civilian administration. In connection to that, please provide a source that confirms that during a whole period of 1940-91 the Baltic states were (unlike the USSR proper) placed under the authority of theRed Army.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lauri Mälksoo, whom I would trust as the prime expert on the matter, says "Estonia was occupied by and annexed to the Soviet Union" throughout his works. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That is almost exactly what I mean. More precisely, "occupied and then annexed". Since you cannot militarily occupy the annexed territory (annexation means that that territory is not considered foreign any more, therefore we cannot speak about the "the authority of the hostile army" there), the period of military occupation ended with annexation (or, according to other sources "forcible incorporation").--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The 1995 book that doesn't actually support your POV?" Please, compare what the source states and what I say, and show me a difference. With regards to 1995, please, explain what new facts became available since those times that changed our understanding of the issue. Finally, if you feel the source is not reliable, feel free to post to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, please, at least read your own sources. You quoted a sentence from the 1995 book, but ignored the fact that the very next two paragraphs discuss the Soviet era in Baltics as occupation - and the next section named "Reversing the Soviet Military Occupation", which discusses 1991-92 events, clearly labeling Soviet military as occupation forces. This is author's text and her opinion, clearly holding the view that Baltic states were occupied. It does sometimes help to read further, when you quote-mine, y'know. Creationists often step into the same trap, too.

And as for Mälksoo, his paper "Soviet Genocide? Communist Mass Deportations in the Baltic States and International Law." (Lauri Mälksoo, 2001, Leiden Journal of International Law (2001), 14 : 757-787 Cambridge University Press - very respected scientific journal and publisher) has a section named "Repressive policies during the second Soviet occupation (1944–1991)", discussing 1994-1991 as occupation. And I would like to point out that the journal specializes in "international legal theory and international dispute settlement", so the peer reviewer(s) of the article would most certainly not allowed the article to be published if there would be a gross mistake about occupation.

"theRed Army" didn't exist beyond 1946, like Termer pointed out below, so I presume you mean the Soviet army. And you've got to be kidding. Governments of the Soviet republics did not have neither de jure nor de facto control of the military. The opposite was true, head of the government jumped when army told them to - army could demand any land for themselves, was not bound by law etc etc etc. If you have any sources stating the opposite, feel free to provide them.

"annexation means that that territory is not considered foreign any more" - and herein lies the key. Western world did not recognize the annexation (per your source, remember?) and therefore it remained a foreign territory for the Soviet Union. To recap, Soviet viewpoint, "happily joined our big family", did not consider them as a foreign territory, while Western world saw Baltic states de jure as independent countries occupied by Soviet Union. This also means that Article 42 of the Hague convention applies.

I see very little point to continue this conversation. You are unable to support your POV with sources. You are ignoring a multitude of sources opposing your view. You are ignoring facts presented to you.

--Sander Säde 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "but ignored the fact that the very next two paragraphs discuss the Soviet era in Baltics as occupation" I wouldn't say so. Although the source does not clearly says that the occupation ended with incorporation of the Baltic states in the USSR, it mentions that the USSR did that ("Though the annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized by Western powers...") In other words, the annexation did take place, although it was illegal from the western point of view. Again, frankly, I think this source can be be interpreted in two ways, so it cannot be used as an unequivocal support of either my or your POV. Similarly, with regards to the next subchapter, it is not clear what is meant under "vestiges of military occupation". The source does not clearly tell when the state of military occupation ended.

With regards to the Mälksoo's article, let me point out that the article pays no attention to the discussion of the legal status of the Baltic states. It tells about Stalinists' crimes there. And, by the way, it uses both "occupation" and "annexation" terms. Below is the verbatim quote from this article that demonstrates my point:

"The novelty of Courtois’ work is that he, rather than restricting himself to the moral condemnation of the Soviet mass “liquidations,” applies the categories of international crimes to Stalin’s policies. He recites the Soviet aggressions (e.g., the occupation and annexation of Eastern European states and territories following the Hitler-Stalin Pact), but especially crimes against humanity and what he provocatively calls “class genocide” (e.g., the liquidation of kulaks and the deliberate organizing of the Ukrainian famine in 1932–1933)." (page 758).

Let me also point out that Mälksoo is an Estonian researcher. Since the Baltic scholars generally consider their states to be occupied by the USSR during the whole Soviet period, it is not surprising that he uses this term. That reflects the national POV, and, taking into account that the article's subject is only tangentially related to the legal status of the Baltic states, it is not surprising that the journal's editors paid no attention to this minor terminological error.

The fact that annexation and occupation are interchangeable in general articles about the legacy of the Soviet rule in the Baltics (see, e.g., J. Shkolnik, "Grappling with the Legacy of Soviet Rule: Citizenship and Human Rights in the Baltic States" University of Toronto Faculty of Law Reviews, 1996, v. 54. She clearly speaks about the "period of annexation") does not mean that be have a sufficient ground to speak about the Baltic states as militarily occupied".

The fact that the Soviet army was present there, does not mean it played a role of occupation authorities. Yes, the army had a considerable free hand in the Baltics, however, the same was true for rest of the USSR, however, noone can speak about the USSR as the territory occupied by the Soviet army. Again, the only argument that can convince me is the source that clearly states that during the period of 1954-91 the Baltic states were placed under the authority of the Soviet Army. Since you are intended to add the material on the occupation of the Baltics the burden of proof rests with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Random break 2

Definitely some progress here, as you admit that your source does not actually support your POV. However, "Reversing the..." is clearly dealing with Soviet army in Baltic states after regaining the independence - and discussing it as occupation army. Not much ambiguity there. And as for Mälksoo, note that he uses Eastern Europe, not Baltic states when mentioning annexation, while specifically stating in headline that Baltic states were occupied. As for "Baltic researcher", let me remind you for the 1000th time, that various international legal bodies (list given several times above) treated and condemned occupation of Baltic states repeatedly both during and after the occupation. Various non-Baltic scholars discuss occupation of Baltic states in their peer-reviewed publications. There is no ambiguity in those court cases, condemnations etc etc - they unequivocally consider Baltic states to be occupied. Should we just disregard the opinion of some of the world's most important establishments, esp. as there are no comparable opposing cases?

From the introduction of Joanne Shkolnik's article: "Under Soviet occupation, the demographics of Latvia and Estonia were drastically altered and Russian-speakers were privileged in many facets of life at the expense of the local population." It is clear she means whole 1944-1991 period, not 1940 or few years after the war (major influx of russophones continued until mid-eighties). Since she uses occupation and annexation interchangeably, it is clear she has no problems treating it as occupation. It seems that many other scientists treat also illegal annexation and occupation of Baltic states as one and the same thing occasionally. What right do we have for original research here? We go the way sources go. Since ****load of sources are using occupation, what right do we have to go against the flow of the majority?

"Since you are intended to add the material on the occupation of the Baltics..." - sorry, but your sentence makes no sense. Could you clarify what you meant, please?

--Sander Säde 14:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "Could you clarify what you meant, please?" You want the statement that the Baltic states were occupied by the USSR during the whole Soviet period to be introduced into the article. Per WP:BURDEN the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Therefore, I expect you to provide the source that clearly states that the Baltic states were placed under the authority of the Soviet Army. You provided no such sources so far. The majority of sources tell about occupation and subsequent illegal annexation. Since a territory cannot be simultaneously occupied and annexed, these sources do not support your claim. The sources that simultaneously use both these terms to describe Soviet rule are hardly accurate enough to use them as a support of your claim. The policy says that "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source", and, obviously, the opposite is equally through.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thankfully we have a source describing Soviet army as an occupying force - thank you for providing it. Section "Reversing the Soviet Military Occupation", Elaine M. Holoboff. 1995. Either she uses some other meaning of occupation or we have the reference you asked, easy. We have yet to find any source denying it.

Re: "Since a territory cannot be simultaneously occupied and annexed" - you know, when it is your opinion vs several scholars, I tend to trust them and not you.

Quite frankly, what are you aiming at here in this whole discussion? We have now a multitude sources describing Baltic states as occupied up to 1991. Scholars, courts, European Parliament, Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council... you name it, we have it. Are they all wrong and you are right, because you believe you are right? You have no peer-reviewed modern sources nor court cases nor parliament resolutions denying the occupation and supporting the annexation. At best, you have some scholars who use annexation and occupation interchangeably. So what is the deal with pushing this viewpoint?

--Sander Säde 15:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "what are you aiming at here in this whole discussion?" My aim is quite simple: to separate occupation from annexation. What in actuality happened in Baltics was occupation, followed by annexation. When the territory is militarily occupied, the hostile military forces are treated as a foreign army by both sides, this army is involved into routine administration of the territory, and the population is not considered as the hostile power's citizens. None of that took place in the Baltics: the Soviet Army was involved into the governance not more then in other Soviet republics, the Soviet citizenship was granted (although forcibly) to all Baltic citizens, and legal status of, e.g. Estonian SSR was indistinguishable from that of, e.g. Belorussian SSR. To prove that all what I am saying is wrong you must present some source that explicitly state the opposite. I believe you have to do that per WP:BURDEN.

With regards to "Scholars, courts, European Parliament, Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council", please, provide concrete quotes (it would be better if these quotes will be big enough to make sure that the words were not taken out of context). Please, keep in mind that the sources that mix "occupation" and "annexation" are a priory not acceptable as a proof for your claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And here we go again. I do believe you have the burden of proving that there is any support to your view - so far you have not been able to come up with absolutely anything besides original research. However, we can reiterate some of the sources again (I simply have better things to do then prove that the Earth is round), but I sincerely hope this is the last of this discussion.

European Court of Human Rights. Kolk v. Estonia (23052/04), Kislyiy v. Estonia (24018/04): Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity: After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991. [11]. Other cases have expressed the same view (Penart v Estonia, 14685/04, [12])
U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Communist Aggression (aka Kersten Committee) (Third Interim Report of the Select Committee on Communist Aggression, 1954, p. 8.). "That the continued military and political occupation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia by the USSR is a major cause of the dangerous world tensions which now beset mankind and therefore constitutes a serious threat to the peace."
Statement by U.S. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey for Baltic Freedom Day June 12, 1966. "Despite alien occupation, oppression and mass deportation, the love of liberty burns strongly in Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian hearts." [13]
United Nations, Human Rights Council, Mission to Estonia. 17 March 2008. "The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 assigned Estonia to the Soviet sphere of influence, prompting the beginning of the first Soviet occupation in 1940. After the German defeat in 1944, the second Soviet occupation started and Estonia became a Soviet republic."
European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities C 42/78. "Condemning the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov-Rippentropp Pact and continues;"[14]
European Parliament "21.5.2007. "Whereas Estonia, as an independent Member State of the EU and NATO, has the sovereign right to assess its recent tragic past, starting with the loss of independence as a result of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 and including three years under Hitler’s occupation and terror, as well as 48 years under Soviet occupation and terror"

"keep in mind that the sources that mix "occupation" and "annexation" are a priory not acceptable as a proof for your claim" - uhm, I think you had some mental hiccup in logic there. Souces that mix occupation and annexation are not acceptable for your claim. If a source mixes annexation and occupation when speaking of events up to 1991, it means they do not distinguish between occupation and illegal annexation, not that they deny occupation. However, when a souce uses occupation and annexation interchangeably, then it cannot be a proof of your annexation theory.

--Sander Säde 09:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the last bit further, note the difference between "occupation and illegal annexation" and "occupation, followed by annexation /which ended the occupation/". --Sander Säde 12:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

European Parliament resolution

In reply to the following quote

whereas Estonia, as an independent Member State of the EU and NATO, has the sovereign right to assess its recent tragic past, starting with the loss of independence as a result of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 and including three years under Hitler’s occupation and terror, as well as 48 years under Soviet occupation and terror,

You probably meant this version of the resolution tabled by Inese Vaidere, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Guntars Krasts, Roberts Zīle, Konrad Szymański, Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Ryszard Czarnecki, Gintaras Didžiokas, Adam Bielan, Michał Tomasz Kamiński and Mieczysław Edmund Janowski. Whereas the adopted version says

whereas Estonia, as an independent Member State of the EU and NATO, has the sovereign right to assess its recent tragic past, starting with the loss of independence resulting from the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 and ending only in 1991,

whereas the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic States was never recognised as legal by the Western democracies,

and says nothing of 48 years of occupation. I noticed that Paul did ask you not to take quotes out of context. I think that this correction in the resolution is a clear indication that position of the European parliament in fact differs from the position of the Baltic nations with regard to whether calling the Soviet annexation as an occupation. (Igny (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

I think you are making the same mistake as Paul did. "Occupation and annexation" is not the same as "occupation followed by an annexation, which ended the occupation". However, yes, I did not see the final resolution, I used the version linked from the article. --Sander Säde 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I think you are making the same mistake as Paul did." I concede that either you or I made a mistake. Since you already described what my mistake (in your opinion) consists in, let me again do the same. In my opinion, your sole and major mistake is that you assume that the same territory can be simultaneously occupied and annexed. To be perfectly honest, that is not only your mistake: some reliable (with respect to other issues) sources do the same mistake. The most funny is the passage on " the continued military and political occupation". Could you please explain me what does "political occupation" mean? I have no idea on that account because only military occupation is defined bt the Hague convention.
Therefore, two interpretations of the sources telling about "occupation and annexation": either these sources imply these events to occur consecutively (one after another, and the former ended after the latter started), or these sources simply do not pay a due attention to usage of correct terminology.
Please, explain me if you saw anywhere a clear statement that some territory that has been already annexed by some state can be under its military occupation? Remember, the fact that some territory is under military occupation means that it is under some martial law. Did that really take place in the Baltics in 1950-91?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are using OR again, can you finally find a source or few to support any of your ideas? Otherwise it is rather pointless to provide sources one after another that show the opposite for your claims - or continue this discussion. As for the political occupation, I found the term interesting and googled it before - and for my surprise, the term is used widely, especially in scientific journals, also about Baltic states. It seems your knowledge isn't as complete as you thought. --Sander Säde 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "it is rather pointless to provide sources one after another that show the opposite for your claims". I would say the opposite to occur: the source used by you (the EP resolution) seems to demonstrate the opposite for your claim, namely, that the idea of "48 years of Soviet occupation and terror" is not supported by EP. I expect that detailed examination of the "articles in scientific journals" you refer to will probably demonstrate the same, namely, that you misunderstand them. Do you really believe it will be possible to find a reliable source that states that during 1950-91 the Baltic state were under control of the Soviet Army, which performed routine administration based martial laws, and that the Baltic citizens had a status different from the status of other Soviet citizens? (That is what occupation means)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please not change arguments constantly? At first it was "civilian government" - and as it came out, Hague convention doesn't have anything about it. Then it was "occupation army" - and we have a source naming Soviet army so. Now it is "martial law" - which is again not mentioned anywhere in the Hague convention in relation to the occupation. And where did the years 1950-1991 suddenly come from, a completely new set of years? It is impossible to discuss anything as you change your arguments as soon as it becomes obvious the old one doesn't hold water.

Once again, can you please support any of your arguments by any source whatsoever? This is getting ridiculous, you are clearly unable to provide sources to support your views - and yet you continually demand sources from me. I think I am done playing this game, put up or shut up.

And we can call the whole occupation thing proven and done after European Court of Human Rights called it an occupation in no ambivalent terms. If one of the foremost legal structures in the world very clearly states "After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991.", then what is even the point of continuing arguments? Or do you think your legal knowledge is somehow better and more important then theirs? Or are they just wrong and you are right, because you are right?

Oh, and finally - as you had no comments about political occupation, I trust you used Google yourself, too. Another interesting term I found was "territorial occupation". Seems like there are more interpretations of occupation in scientific community then your rigid "military occupation".

--Sander Säde 08:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that ECHR is not a homogeneous structure and its statements are not always the final verdict. You just cited a statement of a few particular judges in a particular case. In another particular case, for example, they used "The ensuing annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union..." in no ambiguous way. Thus even in ECHR the term of occupation is not used universally. But what is more important is the fact that Baltic POV has got much better representation in European structures and they did try to use that fact to make their POV prevalent in the Western world, as their EP motion of resolution and the corrected final version showed. In particular your claims of Soviet "fringe theories" are just that, your claims. So not only occupation and annexation theories have to be split or renamed in an NPOV way, but all such claims are to be properly attributed without making any final conclusion with regard to validity of any of these POVs. (as in "according to such and such ruling of ECHR..."; "according to John Laughland..." etc) placing them all on equal footing. (Igny (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

To Sander Säde. I do not change my arguments, I am just trying to demonstrate my point. If you think my arguments are changing, you simply do not understand them. "Military occupation" occurs when a hostile army occupies the opponent's territory and no steps are made to annex this land. For instance, after WWII the territory of Germany was militarily occupied: when the German government was disbanded, the Allied armies took a control over this terriotry and during the whole period of occupation treated it as a foreign territory: they considered themselves as a (temporary) substitute of the domestic government, they acted based on temporary martial laws, they treated German citizens as foreign (not Soviet, British or American) citizens, and Germany as a foreing territory. That is exactly how the Hague convention defines a military occupation, and that is directly opposite to what the USSR did in the Baltics: the Red/Soviet army didn't play a role of occupation authorities there (I mean 1950-91), and, accordingly, no separate martial law existed there, domestic governments were established there soon (of course, these government, as well as the governments of other Soviet republics, was under a strict control of the central govermnent, but no difference existed between a situation if Lithuania and Belarus), the Baltic citizens were treated as other Soviet citizens (based on some sources I can conclude that the regime was even more liberal in the Baltics than in other parts of the USSR), and the USSR considered the territory of the Baltic states as a part of its own territory.

Re: "as you had no comments about political occupation..." I admit my knowledge may be incomplete, an some other forms of occupation exist, e.g. "political occupation", "non-military occupation", etc. However, I failed to find any definition of such terms, so if you believe they really exist, please give me a reference to the sources where these terms have been defined. With regards to "territorial occupation", this term is a pure tautology, since "occupation" already implies "occupation of some territory", I cannot imagine if a "non-territorial" occupation is possible.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I trust you used Google yourself, too" I prefer scholar.google.com. And, as soon as you mentioned the databeses, let's see what term is used more frequently.

I. google scholar (scholar.google.com): "occupation of the Baltic states" [15] 253 hits
"occupation of the Baltic states" AND Soviet ([16] 253 hits
"annexation of the Baltic states" ([17]) 365 hits
""annexation of the Baltic states" AND Soviet ([18]) 362 hits
"occupation of the Baltic states" ANDNOT annexation [19] 161 hit
"annexation of the Baltic states" ANDNOT occupation [20] 116 hits.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

first of all the Annexation of the Baltic States is a completely different subject. It only refers to the events in August 1940 when the Baltic states were formally annexed with the Soviet Union. However, what's missing here above is the fact that only the territories of the Baltic states and thus de facto were annexed with the USSR. The Baltic states didn't go anywhere. Follow the money, lets say the assets of the central banks of the Baltic states: in the US the Executive Order 8389 froze all financial assets of occupied European countries including the Baltic states. In Europe the Baltic assets in an international organization of central banks in Switzerland the Bank for International Settlements remained intact...and needless to say those assets of the Baltic central banks in Switzerland and in the US were only returned after the occupation authorities had lost the power to legal governments. So this "Annexation of the Baltic States" has no another meaning than what happened in Moscow in August 1940.

Other than that, lets keep it simple: unlike the EU and the US, Russia denies the Soviet Union ever occupied the Baltic states because according to the international law, since Russia is the successor state of the USSR, you'd need to pay contributions for damages in case you occupied anybody. So it's only about the money, connected to the fact that Russia has declared itself the successor state of the USSR, that's all there is to it.--Termer (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not an answer. If we assume that the Baltic states were annexed by the USSR (illegally, according to majority of Western governments' opinion), can they be considered as occupied or illegally annexed? Note, they cannot be simultaneously occupied and annexed, because the latter means that they become a part of the Soviet territory, and the USSR cannot militarily occupy its own territory during 48 years.

I thought paying contribution for damages is not a strict requirement according to the international law. Otherwise, the US would have to pay a contribution ot Germany for damages they inflicted during the period of occupation after WWII. In addition, I believe, had Russia recognized that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal (of forceful), that would have the same consequences, namely, the Baltic states would get a right to request for compensations for damage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The formal annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR occurred in August 1940, which was not recognized (like you put it: illegal, according to majority of Western governments). And it wasn't Russia that recognized the annexation of the Baltic states as illegal but it was the Soviet union, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in 1989. So you tell me, since the Soviet Union declared the 1940 annexation of the Baltic stats to be illegal, was it "its own territory during 48 years"?--Termer (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No. According to the Soviet point of view, the annexation was legal and voluntary. However, independent on how legal/illegal it was, the USSR didn't treat the territory of the Baltic states as a hostile territory, it didn't keep special occupation army there that played a role of military occupation authorities, it never treated the local population as foreign citizens, so they had the same rights as other Soviet citizens did; all of that fits the definition of annexation, not occupation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you just pointed out how "Russia recognized that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal'. I corrected you, it was the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in 1989 that did it. In case the Soviet Union recognized the August 1940 annexation was illegal, according to which Soviet POV exactly "the annexation was legal and voluntary"? The Soviet POV up to 1989, meaning the Soviet POV prior to Perestroika and Glasnost? but all this you're talking about is already well spelled out in the article, please see Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Soviet_sources_prior_to_Perestroika.--Termer (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As Paul is unable to present any sources supporting his views and arguments, I think we can now safely ignore those.

If "occupation and annexation" means "first occupied and then annexed", then "annexation and occupation" means first annexed and then occupied, right? The second phrase is used in following peer-reviewed scientific journals and books: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] (giving up after 20).

These are not meant as sources for anything, but just to show it is not possible to use "occupation and annexation" to support the POV of the occupation of the Baltic states being somehow magically changed into annexation at some unspecified point of time. It is clear from a multitude of sources that occupation and annexation can be concurrent in the eyes of many (most?) scientists.

--Sander Säde 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re It is clear from a multitude of sources that occupation and annexation can be concurrent in the eyes of many (most?) scientists. You are just providing more and more reasons to rename the article into Occupation and annexation.... (Igny (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

And like I said below, I would support the rename if the reason was to use more accurate terminology. However, your nomination made it clear it isn't about better terminology, it is about giving Russian POV equal validity despite the lack of sources supporting said POV. --Sander Säde 09:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "As Paul is unable to present any sources supporting his views and arguments, I think we can now safely ignore those." Firstly, I don't think google result to reflect the scholars' community opinion. Google scholar is much more relevant because it includes only scientific publications (mostly from the sources wetted by scientific community). It gives:

(i) for ("annexation and occupation" AND Baltic states) [41] 32 articles.

(ii) for ("occupation and annexation" AND Baltic states) [42] 174 articles.

(iii) In addition, I looked for ("forcible incorporation" AND Baltic states) [43], 137 results.

Clearly, the latter two are much more abundant. In addition to that, since I (by contrast to you) disclose a full procedure of the search, no manipulation with the search results is possible here.

Re: "If "occupation and annexation" means "first occupied and then annexed", then "annexation and occupation" means first annexed and then occupied, right?" This conclusion sounds quite correct, however, it is only your conclusion. In addition, some alternative explanation is possible, e.g. that the sources telling about "annexation and occupation" simply didn't analyse the subject in details, or simply didn't pay a due attention to a correct wording. One way or the another, these your words are just an interpretation of the sources that is not allowed by WP policy. Please, provide a source that unambiguously state that occupation and annexation can be concurrent.

To Termer. You correctly wrote that the late USSR post factum recognized the annexation of the Baltic states illegal. However, I doubt that that automatically implies the change of the Baltic states' status in past. Let me demonstrate that point using the example you provided below.
You write "the civil administration Reichskommissariat Ostland was set up during the German occupation". Yes, however, was that administration similar to the administration of the Germany proper? Was the legal status of the local population similar to that of the German citizens? No. If you think (probably, correctly) that that was not a pure military occupation, it was not the annexation either. The status of these territories better fits the criteria of a colony (like British India or Palestine). One way or the another, did anything of that happen under the Soviets? Was Supreme Council of ESSR different from that of Belorussian SSR? Had Estonian citizens different passports or civil rights? Had Estonia smaller amount of representatives in the Council of Nationalities (one of the chambers of the Soviet parliament, where all republics had the same number of representatives). By all these criteria Estonia was an absolutely full member of the USSR (of course, I agree that it was not what the majority of the Estonians wanted to, however, the question we discuss in not their desire, but the legal status of the Baltic states in the USSR).
Again, I fully agree that incorporation of the Baltic states was made illegally, and against their citizens' will, however, that was a full incorporation, not occupation or colonization, and these states were the full (although unwilling) members of the USSR.
And, finally, let me remind you that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was condemned by Supreme Council of the USSR where the Baltic citizens were represented, and the procedure of condemnation was initiated the Baltic citizens themselves. Had Estonia been occupied that would be absolutely impossible, because the population of the occupied territory cannot be presented in the occupant's parliament.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PS With regards to lawful/unlawful annexation, these details are hardly relevant to the discussion's subject. Yes, the USSR pretended the annexation to be lawful, although it failed to prove that. However, the fact that the annexation was unlawful according to majority western powers' opinion, does not make it the occupation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you found Google Scholar. Can you now come up with a source stating that annexation ended the occupation? If not, then I only must reiterate that your claims have no support whatsoever. --Sander Säde 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention to add the words about "annexation that ended the occupation" into the main article. I used these words only for the talk page discussion. What should be written in the article (in my opinion) is that the Baltic states were annexed by the Soviet Union, that, according to many sources, the annexation was in actuality a forcible incorporation, and that other sources call that event an "occupation". I believe you realize that that my statement summarizes what all reliable sources tell on that subject.
By contrast, you insist on presenting the 1940-91 events as if occupation and annexation were the concurrent events, and that consensus exists on that account. Since per WP policy I do not have to provide a source that proves you are wrong, I expect you to present a source that explicitly states that occupation and annexation can be de jure concurrent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I am glad we have a multitude of sources that mix annexation and occupation. This should be a proof enough for them being concurrent in the eyes of the scientists. You, on the other hand, have been unable to bring a source showing that they cannot be concurrent. You have the burden of proof here, I have plenty of sources treating them as concurrent whereas you have yet to come up a single source showing the opposite. Really, is it so hard, Paul? One measly modern scientific source (well, several would be better) is all I ask. And I must note I have been asking it about dozen times now - so far no source. What is the problem? --Sander Säde 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Sorry Jaan but the infobox you've added simply doesn't make any sense. I even don't know from where to start. Belligerents Baltic Entente? Commanders Johan Laidoner, Kārlis Ulmanis, Antanas Smetona together with 'Strength Autumn 1944'? Laidoner, Ulmanis nor Smetona were no commanders of anything by 1944. etc. An the Baltic Entente never was a belligerent of anything. So what's going on? I honestly don't know how to fix it, but in case you want to keep it and have some ideas how to make it work, please do. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Which one is it - was there a conflict at first place or was the occupation peaceful? In the later case, the Infobox Military Conflict must be removed. If the former is true, it should be possible to outline the sides of the conflict. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these two. No matter how peaceful the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR was, the occupation ended after civilian administration (not subordinated to Soviet military/NKVD) had been established in these forcibly incorporated territories, and these new Soviet republics got the rights equal to those of other Soviet Union's members.

One more serious issue: the present infobox lists all population losses (724,000) in the Baltic section, implying that they were a result of either Nazi or Soviet activity. However, 228,000 of these killed civilians were Jews, and the fact that Baltic citizens voluntarily participated in extermination of Jews under Nazi is well known. Therefore, I think the way the figures are presented is highly misleading. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Jaan Pärn even though the 1940 occupation was a Silent Submission/unconditional surrender there was a conflict and the occupation wasn't peaceful. It doesn't mean it was a military conflict since all Baltic states had signed and followed the Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war as an instrument of national policy. So all resistance to the occupying powers was civilian, starting with Forest Brothers ending with the Baltic embassies/consulates abroad.--Termer (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Baltic citizens voluntarily participated in extermination of Jews under Nazi is well known". This is very bold provocation. I'd suggest you to remove such politically charged personal opinion from this talk page. There are Baltic citizens whose voluntary work has been honored with Righteous among the Nations. So such inflammatory and generalizing remarks on "Baltic citizens" like you such made by spicing it up with "well known" has no place on Wikipedia talk pages.--Termer (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest to replace it to is well known among those who studied the subject. Will it fix your concerns? (Igny (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Re: "This is very bold provocation." Arajs Kommando, "spontaneous" (although secretly supported by Nazi) pogroms in Kowno, Vilnus, Riga, etc. Attempts to neglect these facts are on the brink of the Holocaust denial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Baltic Holocaust deaths are a direct result of the Nazi occupation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is replacing it with is well known to whom has followed Kremlin's propaganda. Arajs Kommando represents Baltic citizens suddenly? Few posts ago it was claimed that after the Baltic states were annexed by the USSR all Baltic peoples became Soviet citizens. So please keep it consistent, either you have "Baltic citizens" of the occupied Baltic states during WWII or you have Soviet citizens, like the Russian/Soviet citizens voluntarily joined the Kaminski Brigade and other Schutzmannschaft units during nazi occupation. So what's your point with this Arajs Kommandoand "Baltic citizens"? Other than it's a card played by Kremlin who likes to point out Arajs Kommando but keeps forgetting about the Kaminski Brigade etc at the same time. Lets see: Arajs Kommando had about 1,500 members, the Kaminski Brigade however in the amount of 10-12 thousands.--Termer (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem to list the Holocaust victims along with other population losses. However, the way it has been done is highly misleading. It combines three (in actuality, even four or five) different periods: initial Soviet pseudo-voluntary annexation (when large number of civilians perished as a result of Stalin purges), German occupation (which result in numerous Holocaust deaths as a result of joint Nazi and Latvian and Lithuanian volunteers' activity), Soviet-German war (Narva offencive and Courland pocket, when the Baltic citizens fought mostly on the German side), Soviet re-occupation (that resulted in anti-partisan warfare and mass arrests of Nazi actual and alleged collaborators) and the long period when civil administration was established in the Baltic states, and the latter (especially under Khruschev and Brezhnev) had the rights similar to those of other Soviet citizens. I would say, the regime there was more liberal than in the rest of the USSR.
Do you really think it is correct to combine all of that together in the military conflict type infobox?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is correct to combine all of that in an article, it goes as well for an infobox. You are welcome to suggest another type of infobox, though. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it is correct to combine all of that in this article, because this is a story not about a single occupation period lasted from 1940 to 1991, but about (i) forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR (that was not an occupation, since international laws clearly distinguish between occupation and annexation); (ii) a period of Nazi occupation (that fit all criteria of occupation, although for local population, except Jews, this occupation regime was milder than the Stalin's one); (iii) a period of Nazi-Soviet warfare (that belongs more to the history of the USSR and Germany); (iv) a period of brutal post-war Stalin's regime, and, finally, (v) a comparatively mild Khruschev's and Brezhnev's times. I don't think "occupation" is the best word to characterize all of that. I think the only way to neutrally name the article about the whole 1940-91 period is to call it "History of the Baltic states (1940-91)", or "Loss and restoration of independence by Baltic states".
One way or the another, it is quite incorrect to present this whole period as a single military conflict in which the Baltic state were a party, therefore a military style infobox should be replaced with something else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if no sources will be provided that the Baltic states were under control of the Red Army (not the USSR) until 1991, I'll move the end date into the footnote and supplement it with the quote specifying that that date reflects mostly the opinion of the Baltic states themselves; I also will remove a Belligerents, Commanders and losses section. I propose move population losses into the Results, or Aftermath section and to split them onto separate periods: 1940 (Soviet) 1941-44 (German) and 1944-??? (probably 45, depending on what was the date of formation of civilian administration there).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

...if no sources will be provided that the Baltic states were under control of the Red Army (not the USSR) until 1991? Was that a joke? Something called Red Army existed only from 1918-1946.--Termer (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't expect someone to notice that inaccuracy. You are absolutely right, although the Red Army is colloquially used for the RKKA/Soviet Army, in actuality that name was used only during the period of 1918-46. Of course, I meant Red/Soviet Army.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Naturally the Baltic states were not under the control of the Soviet Army during the Soviet occupation exactly like the countries were not under the control of the German Army during the nazi occupation. So in case there is any logic in saying "once the civil administrations were set up by the Soviets the occupation ended", that would mean once the civil administration Reichskommissariat Ostland was set up during the German occupation, the occupation ended? Usually occupied territories do not get controlled by regular ground forces like the Soviet or German Army, there are other units for the purpose in order to maintain control over occupied territories. The Germans had Gestapo, RSHA; the Soviets NKVD/KGB, the MVD troops etc.--Termer (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See my response above. Reichskommissariat Ostland was an administration quite different from the domestic administration of the Germany proper.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

End date

Paul, what is this silliness with that? Why do you keep deleting it from the lead while keeping it in the infobox? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaan, I don't believe it is silliness. The sources state about occupation followed by forcible incorporation (or annexation) of the Baltic states into the USSR. Therefore, the occupation ended when civilian administration had been established there. Of course, the Baltic states remained illegally annexed or incorporated, but there were no military administration there (like in the USSR proper), no separate status for the Batic citizens (they had the same rights as other Soviet citizens did), therefore, it is incorrect to speak about some military occupation (and I am not aware of the terms like non-military occupation). In addition, the sources say that the Baltic people saw themselves as occupied by the USSR, whereas the Soviet authorities maintained that the "annexation" was legal and voluntary. All of that should be (and is) in the lede.
With regards to the end date, I removed the date both form the lede and the infobox, however, it was re-introduced into the infobox by someone.
I also think that real silliness is to build the infobox in the military campaign style. That leads to confusion and seems to fit SYNTH criteria. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I did not completely remove the end date from the lede. It is still there ("Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania understand themselves to have been the occupied states during the whole Soviet period that ended in 21 August 1991.^[1]"). I just re-worded the text to what the source says in actuality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole infobox should be removed as not relevant. none of the wikipedia "occupation of..." articles use such an infobox like military conflict in the first place. In case really seen as a necessity, a new format "infobox occupation" of something should be created, and it should be made so that it would make sense in the context, unlike the current one.--Termer (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe, the top part of it (start date, results, aftermath) can stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Termer, I wish you were not agressive in your ignorance. See Occupation of Constantinople, Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany, Occupation of German Samoa, and the list goes on. You are welcome to create a new infobox template, though. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My ignorance? Did you ever take a look at your examples how the infobox has been used on Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany? or the other 2 examples? Perhaps the use has been so limited because it doesn't really make sense to have such an infobox like "military conflict" on "occupation of..." articles. And the reason why it doesn't make sense is simple really, "occupation of" most usually is that follows/comes after a military conflict. It should be self explanatory, an occupation can only start once a conflict is over, or another way to put it: until there is a conflict, who exactly occupies the territories? I'd say the infobox needs to go, unless it's used like in one of the examples for displaying an image only. In case "start date, results, aftermath" in the infobox make the article better, fine. I don't see any major problems with the upper part other than only the territorial changes of Estonia have been laid out. How about Abrene district of Latvia and the Vilnius region of Lithuania?--Termer (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, did I understand correct that by removal of the "Belligerents", "Commanders", "Strengths" and "Casualties" sections the issue will be resolved? In other words, do you support my above proposal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Belligerents", "Commanders", "Strengths" and "Casualties" do not make sense for sure. As those are "Belligerents", "Commanders", "Strengths" and "Casualties" of the military conflicts that led to the occupation. Only exception would be the partisans perhaps, but overall all the info in the box is too broken to get it fixed. And since I don't see any ways how to fix it, feel free to remove it. You can keep the upper part if you like but I'd remove it too. For example what exactly is the "result" suppose to mean "Forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union"? The Baltic citizens abroad were able to get native passports from the embassies/consulates that remained open during the entire occupation, and travel with such documents, (not to Eastern block of cource) So how were for example the Baltic embassies as institutions of Baltic states forcibly incorporated into anything, not to mention the assets of the Baltic central banks that were not annexed anywhere etc. The bottom line, if anything the "result" would be "the territories of the Baltic states were incorporated with the Soviet Union as Soviet Baltic republics". Also, for example the Baltic citizens were not recognized as Soviets in the occupation zones of western allies.etc. Therefore this "Forcible incorporation" only applies to the territories and citizens within the Soviet control, and therefore the current "result" is misleading.--Termer (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, so you propose "Forcible incorporation of the Baltic states' territory into the Soviet Union"? I agree that that would be more correct. And do I understand correct that, besides "Belligerents", "Commanders", "Strengths" and "Casualties", you have no other objections?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Termer (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ps. In case "Territorial changes" remain, it should point out relevant to Latvia and Lithuania as well.--Termer (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pytalovo is Abrene (talk about ignorance) and Lithuania acquired Vilnius region already in the occupation of Poland, three quarters of a year before the Soviet occupation of Lithuania. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The belligerents and related sections make perfect sense. Simply enough, there were three belligerent parties involved in the occupation and annexation and the fact is best outlined in an infobox with strengths at the key moment in time and casualties suffered in the involved operations. What is unclear about it? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Lithuania acquired Vilnius region already in the occupation of Poland? No kidding? Lithuania acquired Vilnius on October 28, 1939 after the country had accepted the Soviet ultimatum on October 10, 1939. So you're basically arguing the ultimatum after which Lithuania acquired Vilnius has no connection to the occupation? Pytalovo is Abrene, fine, my mistake. But it just another example how the infox has been put together making no sense. You use Pytalovo together with Estonian Ingria and Petseri County? If its Pytalovo shouldn't it be consistent and say parts of Pskov Oblast and Leningrad oblast for the rest? Or vice versa if you use Estonian Ingria and Petseri County the name Abrene district should be used.--Termer (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC) PS. On the rest, you write Date "14 June 1940 – 21 August 1991" and list "belligerent parties involved in the occupation and annexation" Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin? And Strength is dated to Autumn 1944 at the time when the annexation you just mentioned occurred in August 1940. So what is this infobox exactly trying to say?--Termer (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pytalovo - the infobox lists historical regions that have wiki articles or paragraphs. Abrene links to Pytalovo. Should the infobox say "parts of Leningrad and Pskov Oblasts", it would be unclear, which parts.

Re: Vilnius region: it seems incorrect to list territorial changes well before the start of the occupation.

Re: the rest: Hitler and Stalin were the commanders of German and Soviet forces. What is your question?

It would be easily possible to list the Baltic and Soviet strengths for the summer of 1940. However, German forces were not involved at the moment. The time of comparison has to be when all three belligerents were involved in the Baltics. It is either the summer of 1941 or the autumn of 1944. The latter was the decisive battle. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This debate does not go anywhere, unless...

we demonstrate the concrete things which are wrong in this article and set up constructive suggestions on how to proceed with this article. The main problem in this version of the article is the POV title and a significant advance of the Baltic POV at expense of the Russian POV (violation of the NPOV policy). Admittedly the Baltic POV is more widespread in the Western literature but it is only due to its better representation in Europe in particular and anti-Soviet and anti-Russian sentiments in the West, in general. A particular POV which is being advanced here is the undue comparison of the Soviet and Nazi actions in the Baltic during and in aftermath of WW2.

Suggestions: there is already an article on Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany, so we can move most of the content in the section on the Nazi occupation there. Then proceed with renaming the article to Occupation and annexation of Baltic States by Soviet Union, a title which better describes the event in a more neutral way and no less widespread than occupation alone. And then we can proceed adding sources debating whether the annexation or occupation was illegal, whether occupation was followed or was ended by the annexation or vice versa and list all controversies and relevant opinions. The interruption of the Soviet rule by the Nazis may be relevant, but should be shortened since most of content should be in the main article on the subject. (Igny (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states → Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union — a better and NPOV title, per all the discussion above.(Igny (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Support per Mälksoo and other sources and more accuracy in a complicated matter. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union is a chapter of this article: Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Soviet_invasion_and_occupation, it covers the time frame from June 1940 to August 1940. A main article for the time period can be created as a stand alone piece once the section in this article dictates it.--Termer (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am actually glad that you do not oppose the move, it would be nice to have a real unanimous consensus once in a while. (Igny (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. This particular Russian POV has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world, it serves no purpose to reflect this POV in the name of English Wikipedia. Making the name of the article longer serves no purpose whatsoever, besides making it more confusing and harder to find for readers (which, admittedly, can be a purpose, too). If someone honestly believes that many readers will come to the article through the longer name, then creating an appropriate redirect is the way to go. --Sander Säde 07:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: This particular Russian POV has nearly non-existent representation in the English-speaking world, "Annexation of the baltic states" vs. "occupation of the baltic states" is 600k v. 1800k. Google hits. ( on scholar it is 9.6k v. 38k without quotes and 365 v. 253 with quotes). Hardly nonexistent. And you are right, whether one looks for occupation or for annexation both could be directed here through appropriate redirection pages. What part of WP:ENGLISH is relevant here? I believe I was using English terminology in my suggestion. (Igny (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Re:Russian POV: This is ridiculous, Mälksoo represents no more Russian POV than Sander Säde. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that a lot of sources see the illegal annexation and occupation as concurrent events, not consecutive. Soviet and Russian sources deny the occupation altogether. That is the difference between Western and Russian sources. I was hoping to write about this above before more nonsense is said about it, sadly I was not fast enough. --Sander Säde 08:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:annexation and occupation as concurrent events, not consecutive. That is all in eye of beholder. Let our readers decide what they see in the title, not you or me.

Re:before more nonsense is said about it, This is not an argument this is an awkward attempt to insult your fellow editors. (Igny (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

(ec)Here.

I might have supported the rename if the reasoning would have been to include both terms into the article name (like Mälksoo and other researches occasionally do), while making it clear that it means concurrent occupation and annexation. However, as Igny chooses to talk about "anti-Russian sentiments in the West", naming Western viewpoint as "Baltic POV" and "undue comparison of the Soviet and Nazi actions in the Baltic", it is clear he is only interested to push a fringe viewpoint into article as a mainstream view. I cannot support such action (and I must say, for me the nomination feels just ultra-nationalist. I've always thought that Igny is above such behavior and I am truly sad to see it isn't so). --Sander Säde 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Any sources calling "annexation of the baltic states" fringe theories? I tried to google for them and could not find any. Your sadness about my behaviour is noted, I suggest you'd take a wiki-break, you are taking your content disputes with others too close to heart. (Igny (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Except you wish to promote view "occupation became annexation" view as equal to the "annexation and occupation lasted until 1991". Would it be possible to find any sources to support the first? I've been asking for such sources over and over, so far we haven't seen any peer-reviewed modern sources stating so. If there is no sources besides opinion columns in newspapers and such, I think we can safely say per WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth." (my underline) --Sander Säde 09:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that 600k google hits and 9k hits in Google scholar for "annexation of Baltic states" refute your "departing significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" claims as baseless. (Igny (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Yes, and strangely enough, you are still not able to come up with a single source claiming the occupation ended and annexation begun, the POV you want to insert to the article. I wonder why is that? Perhaps because despite Google matches, such source does not exist? Anonymous Google matches really aren't neither sources nor arguments. --Sander Säde 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "annexation of Baltic states" gives 3 matches in Google Scholar, [here]. --Sander Säde 18:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, state a search phrase correctly: "annexation of the Baltic states" [44] gives 365 results (as oppose to "occupation" [45], 253 results). BTW, careful reading of my previous posts would help to avoid such a mistake.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I used Igny's phrase. --Sander Säde 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To get the number of 9.6k results on Google scholar I did not use quotes. (Igny (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Oppose present title is not to clumsy as proposed one, therefore better on this aspect. Complains that particular POV is neglected because it is better represented in certain sources is irrelevant, a long side such generalizations are on the OR edge. M.K. (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The current title deserves the {POV-title} tag, what would you prefer a clumsier but more neutral and more accurate title or the current POV-title? Another less clumsy suggestion could be Annexation of the baltic states a very widespread in both Russian and Western literature term. I am sure there will be an outcry among Baltic editors against the "Annexation of..." as a POV title. I claim that mixing the terms annexation and military occupation under article on "Occupation of..." is no less POV than using the title "Annexation of..." (Igny (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Of course, you are free to disagree with my opinion. M.K. (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So do you have any objections to Annexation of the Baltic States by Soviet Union? (Igny (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

Support. Since many (majority, per google scholar) sources call this event "annexation", and since no sources have been provided so far that confirm that annexation and occupation are not mutually exclusive events, the present title is simply factually incorrect, and, importantly, non-neutral. Since per policy the neutrality principle "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus", this poll's result is a priori null and void.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to play the Google game, let's see which sources use the terms exclusively. Annexation: 118. Occupation: 161. I see such Google games as absolutely worthless. --Sander Säde 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you for repeating the search that I already made (in the "European Parliament resolution" section). However, occupation does not exclude subsequent annexation. Moreover, as a rule the former is a prerequisite for the latter, so the search results proved nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It definitely proved that contrary to Sander's claims this view is not fringe in English literature. (Igny (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Re: "I see such Google games as absolutely worthless" A logical development of this claim would be: "I see the sources that do not confirm my POV absolutely worthless."
Speaking seriously, by contrast to google, which reflects everything it fount on the Internet, Google Scholar shows just scholarly publications that have been wetted by scientific community (I repeat this again because Sander Säde seems not to read my posts carefully.) That is why google scholars' results are a good reflection of the global scholars community's opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my. How wrong conclusions it is possible to draw? Such Google e-peen fights are useless unless they include the intent of the author and content of the article - which all those searches obviously didn't do. Like somewhere far, far above there are searches from Scholar about Soviet liberation of the Baltic states - where half of the sources had "liberation" in scare quotes. And as for Scholar vs web search, let me point out to you once again, that those were Igny's searches and not mine. I don't think there has been even one Google web search from me on this page. --Sander Säde 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Take for example Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) - should we transform it into a disambiguation page and divide its contents to 2 articles, being Occupation and annexation of Poland by the Soviet Union and Occupation and annexation of Poland by the Nazi Germany? Currently there is the more comprehensive single article, plus two additional ones: Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union and Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. I find the single and comprehensive article better and also necessary. Plus, we already have our own additional ones: Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany and Estonian SSR (same for Latvia and Lithuania). I find the Polish and Baltic articles quite comparable in this situation..H2ppyme (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The example is not completely correct. The Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) article reflects a consensus that this country was occupied in 1939, and that that occupation ended in 1945. By contrast, no commonly accepted terminology exists that describes what happened in the Baltic states in 1945-91. Some sources call that "occupation", other use the word "annexation" or "forcible incorporation", some others mix these terms. Therefore, as I already wrote, the present name reflects only a part (not a major part) of the existing sources, so, per WP policy that situation must be fixed regardless on whether we get a consensus on that account or not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you got mistaken. This is not a debate over splitting the article, it is a debate over renaming the article to a more neutral title. Also you forgot to mention that there is already an article on Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany. But look at the scope of the current article. About 90 percent of the article is devoted to debates of Russian versus Baltic POVs over whether to call it occupation or annexation by the Soviet Union and how legal it was and how recognized it was. So there is no even need to split anything since a section on the Nazi invasion is certainly needed as it is relevant to the Soviet Union's occupation and annexation of the Baltic states. All I am suggesting at the moment is a rename to a more neutral title and possibly (but not necessary) shortening of the section on the Nazi invasion by moving parts of it into the main article, which already exists. (Igny (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

a more neutral title? and the proposed title is "more neutral' exactly why and how? The proposed title refers to a different time frame: June 1940-August 1940. Whats more neutral about that than having an article that covers the whole era of "Baltic states: Years of Dependence, 1940-91", and that's the only "more neutral" title covering the subject I'm aware of. The only thing, it covers a bit broader subject, not only the occupation but like it's stated on the book published by the University of California Press: It's about "how the Baltic nations survived fifty years of social disruption, language discrimination, and Russian colonialism".--Termer (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your citing Baltic authors only confirms existence of the Baltic POV in the title. (Igny (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

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

^ Parrott, Bruce (1995). "Reversing Soviet Military Occupation". State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 112–115. ISBN 1563243601. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

[1] Parrott, Bruce (1995). "Reversing Soviet Military Occupation". State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 112–115. ISBN 1563243601. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

[1]