User:Digwuren/Talk:Soviet occupation denialism

Process v. event

I find it important to point out that the occupation in question was a 50-year process, not any particular short-timed event. It might be useful to also represent in the article; I just don't yet know how. Digwuren 11:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For once we agree! Occupation theorists regard as ~~rape~~ occupation, not only the events of 1940 and 1944, but also the whole history of the Estonian SSR, the Latvian SSR and the Lithuanian SSR. -- Petri Krohn 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Ghirlandajo added this comment:

As is clear from the context of his address, he referred to the claims that the USSR "occupied" tha Baltic States at the conclusion of the WWII, whereas they had been considered its constituent states since 1939. There is no evidence that Ivanov denied the occupation of those states in 1939.

This is actually contrary to the official position advocated by Russia. Specifically, the official position does not publically consider Baltic states to have been SSRs before their "admission" in 1940; what happened in 1939 is customarily considered "presence of limited army contingent as a part of general cooperation and mutual military assistance" (or other nice-sounding euphemisms). Importantly, 1939 events have not been recognised as start of occupation by Russia, and since the puppet governments weren't installed before 1940, probably never will be. Digwuren 11:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Generalisation

When I began the article, I only started with the Baltic states. However, it is very clear that the phenomenon applies to a number of Soviet activities all over the occupied territories. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with studies regarding Soviet war crimes in Romania and Bessarabia, only marginally knowledgeable about the events in Poland and Hungary, and unable to read these studies in their original languages. More references are sorely needed.

Furthermore, the current introduction does not 'flow' properly. It should be rephrased in a more neutral way. I do not currently have a good idea on how this is to be done, and welcome suggestions. Digwuren 12:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reorganised the intro into a list, with the intention that every entry eventually become a section referring to and discussing particular denial incidents, and summarising and referring the incidents being denied. Hopefully, this is more neutral and more flexible. Digwuren 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Occupation denial claims

Hungary, Poland and Romania were not occupied by the Soviet Union. They did have communist regimes but were in most regards independent of the Soviet Union political infrastructure. If presence of the Red Army counts as occupation, then Western Germany was and still is occupied by American, British and French forces. --Philaweb T-C 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Western Germany was, indeed, occupied by the Allied forces after WWII. Interestingly, no great effort went into denying this.

As of now, the remaining military bases are subject to recognised acceptance by local government and do not influence local politics, so it appears to be reasonable to conclude that occupation has ended and what's left is bases.

Poland appears to have been partialy occupied by Soviet forces even before WWII, as explained in Poland#World War II.

As of Hungary and Romania, my understanding is that they were similarly occupied; just their occupations ended much earlier than those of the Baltic states, and the occupation denial efforts regarding these states mostly involved coverup of atrocities, rather than justification of military presence. I lack proper sources to that effect right now, though, and welcome your sources so the article can be improved. Digwuren 19:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet occupation of Romania lasted from 1944 to 1958. That's a pretty long time, by any measure. Turgidson 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a differentiation between what was incorporated to the Soviet Union by the means of occupation and what was occupied and kept as independent countries. The occupation of Poland was a direct result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact during World War II, Poland was not occupied after the war. The occupation of Romania was a result of the Yalta Conference and connected to the incorporation of Bukovina to the Ukrainian SSR and Bessarabia to the Moldovian SSR. After Stalin's death in 1953 the political climate changed and the Red Army was withdrawn. --Philaweb T-C 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed

"Typically, occupation deniers make some or all of the following claims" This is an original research, I do not believe that typical claims of the "occupation deniers" were ever analyzed and published. For example, claim that Holodomor denial is a part of the occupation denial appears to be false. Lantios 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a description statement, you are confusing it with original research. Try to rephrase it. --Lysy^talk 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"The claims made by the occupation deniers may include..." anything! "Occupation deniers" may make any irrelevant claims. Looks like WP:WEASEL to me. Why are the listed claims relevant, who says that they are relevant to the article? Lantios 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, what Lantios is doing is handwaving. Since there is no serious dispute on the discussion page, I'm going to remove the dispute tag. Digwuren 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice that my questions remain unanswered, the definition of the "soviet occupation denialism" remains unreferenced, but Digwuren still removes the "totally disputed" tag with some vague reply. Lantios 22:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your questions, Lantios, have no connection to factual accuracy or neutrality. Consequently, the tag you added makes no sense and is itself factually inaccurate and not neutral :P. On the other hand, the article is not only about denial of occupation ... so renaming or splitting it may be a good idea. (Separate articles on denial of soviet crimes, and of occupation.) Lebatsnok 09:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources do not generally differentiate them, and consider, on one hand, the occupations itself to be among these crimes, and on another, many of the crimes to be parts of the occupations. However, if you can draft a way for such a split supportable with reliable sources, it should certainly be considered. Digwuren 09:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(See also #Renaming.)

Article on denial of soviet occupation would include stuff on Russian (and late USSR) denial of the fact that the Baltic states were occupied in the 1940s by the Soviet Union. The quotation by Ivanov is a good example.

Article on denial of soviet crimes would include stuff on Katyn, Holodomor, deportations, Gulag, persecution of political dissidents.Lebatsnok 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, claim that Holodomor denial is a part of the "Soviet occupation denialism" is false, this is trivial (starvation is not occupation). Highly dubious claims without references = totally disputed. Lantios 11:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's about inadequacy of title. Holodomor denial is a part of "denial of Soviet crimes". Lebatsnok 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

There is an ongoing discussion about the title of this article in AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation denialism - recommended title is Denial of Soviet crimes. DLX 09:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Denial of Soviet crimes.

Do Wikipedia policies require us to wait until the AfD is over with renaming, or can this be initiated earlier? Digwuren 09:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I wouldn't rename/move it just now - however, you should support the renaming motion in AfD, I think. DLX 09:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am rather sure that AfD will fail to reach consensus - so it pretty much depends on the whim of reviewing admin, what will happen. I think we might go ahead with the move/rename now or in a few days, unless there are further things to discuss. DLX 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the AfD will fail to reach consensus. I support Denial of Soviet crimes as a better title, as the article documents the issue, and instances, of denial as opposed to being about the events--Baltic occupations, Katyn massacre, etc.--themselves. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone protests (with better reason then WP:IDONTLIKEIT), I will move article to Denial of Soviet crimes tomorrow (ie 2007-05-26). I'll post this message to AfD as well. DLX 05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I insist on the WP:RM if anyone wants to move the artilce as the discussion will allow to look find a community stance for the acceptable name. Any title change that involves a controversy requires the formal WP:RM vote. --Irpen 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What controversy over the future name do you see? Digwuren 05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Anyway, submit it to WP:RM and if there is no controversy, there won't be a problem. Also, never ever revert non-vandalism edits using the roll-back, undo, AWB or popups. --Irpen 05:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Some sources for the future

Just collecting sources to be included, depending on the outcome of AfD. Not commenting on quality of those sources or contents.

DLX 08:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Communism and Crimes against Humanity in the Baltic states
Library of Congress: Revelations from the Russian Archives
Tygodnik Powszechny: Operation "Disinformation"
Holocaust Pictures and Stories - Non-Jewish Holocaust Victims
History of the Occupation of Latvia (1940-1991)
Khrushchev Era Politics and the Investigation of the Kirov Murder, 1956-1957 by Matthew Lenoe
"You have half an hour ...", an online chapter of Exiled to Siberia: A Polish Child's WWII Journey by Klaus Hergt

Summary removed

I tagged the summary with the "fact" template. Since no reference was provided for the summary, and the "fact" template was removed twice, I removed the summary. See WP:CITE#Tagging_unsourced_material for details. Lantios 14:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing the SUMMARY of an article seems inappropriate to me. Summary is supported by all sources for the article. Ive removed the only bit that can be contended as uncited, the reference to denialism.--Alexia Death 15:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has to prove that the term "Soviet occupation denialism" exists and has this meaning, right? Otherwise, see WP:OR. Lantios 15:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Nobody has to prove that the *term* "List of record labels starting with P", or the *term* of "Video game controversy" exists. The existence of the *concepts*, though, is obvious, and supported throughout the articles - for example, in the former case, every listed record label's starting with P is a piece of support. You can check them if you're not convinced. Digwuren 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists are a special case specifically described in the rules, and the "Video game controversy" article does not contain the phrase "Video game controversy is when two chickens cross the road" or similar nonsense. You suggest that starvation and occupation are basically the same things, such statements require references. Lantios 15:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lantios, how about renaming the article to Denial of Soviet crimes then, would you support it ? --Lysy^talk 16:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The rename is starting to be the consensus on the delete page and this starts to look more like nitpicking at words. All references to denialism were removed. The rest is exactly what Digwuren points.--Alexia Death 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Even with another name, this article will be somewhat stupid. Suppose I say that USSR did not nuke Zimbabwe. Does this count as "denial of Soviet crimes"? My point is that there are some crimes USSR did not commit. Lantios 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with understanding word denial? | This may help you. Denial presumes that things discussed have actually happened. Thus the title means "Refusal to accept Soviet crimes that have happened".--Alexia Death 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"(2) : assertion that an allegation is false" ([1]). Hmm? Lantios 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This presumes that an allegation is involved. There have been no ALLEGATIONS. From your writings your English should be good enough to see this. Please stop playing dumb...--Alexia Death 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"there are some crimes USSR did not commit" - well, yes, you are right, but that's another article. Let's focus on the crimes the USSR did commit and some people are denying were committed. --Philaweb T-C 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Updates, accuracy and references

I melded the "forms" of denial into one, as the one represented as one which people popularly argue ("Soviets invited") is also stated by the Russian authorities (for which I provided a reference). Harking to Soviet past, specifically in associating with that past, also clarified and added reference to restoration of Dzherzinsky's (founder of the Cheka) bust to the Moscow police's courtyard in 2005, from where it had been removed in 1991. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Added "Further reading" reference to book by Bernhard Lamey (1952). Lettland in der Europäischen Schicksalsgemeinschaft. Andrejs Ozolins Verlag, Eutin. OCLC 4382484.. This book contains copy of United States of America , Department of State, certificate no. 5234, signed May 28, 1947 by Secretary of State George C. Marshall. The certificate certifies that: "The incorporation of Latvia by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is not recognized by the Government of the United States". There are copies of three other certificates related to this issue. Unsigned added by User:Philaweb 14:16, May 22, 2007 (UTC)

Soviet crimes against Russians

One of the persistent theses of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was that the largest ethnic group victimised by the Soviet regime were the Russians. This raises two interesting questions:

Do Soviet crimes against Russians, and their coverups, fit into this article?
Are there any reliable sources systematically describing these crimes and their coverups? Digwuren 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Forking

The article's title suggests that it is about Occupation, or even a narrower issue of that, it's "denialism" whatever it is. However, its content has become a soapbox of indiscriminate collection of all unrelated Soviet crimes thrown together. This is not an article about Soviet crimes per se, so I removed irrelevant sections forked from other articles. I am not familiar with mainstream sources that state that Ukraine, one of four constituent republics that formed the USSR, was in fact under the status of an "occupied territory". Since the content of these section was not a product of the article authors' writing, but merely a fork from two other articles (one of those I largely wrote myself), there is no loss of information either. --Irpen 04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The emphasis on crimes whose relation with occupation was only causal is an artefact of the re-topicing the article. When the RfD is over, the article will be renamed into Denial of Soviet crimes, so both Katyn and Holodomor are applicable. I'll restore them; especially since the Holodomor story was raw and needs more work. Digwuren 04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following sequence of events. First write a good article about Soviet crimes. If its volume warrants spinning off the denial, start the Denial of Soviet crimes. This however is irrelevant to this article now. When it is renamed, we will talk. For now, those pieces do not belong here. You and your friends should have had a clear picture when you started the article what scope for it you had in mind. If the scope was to just grind one's ax, we get such incoherent stuff and content not matching the title whose choice is also unencyclopedic. Anyway, it is up to you what to do with this masterpiece now but under the name it uses at present non-occupation stuff does not belong here. --Irpen 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for an article on Soviet crimes; a category will do. Most of the notable crimes already have their own articles.

Denial, OTOH, requires narrative, so a category won't suffice for this.

Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the idea of Katyn and Holodomor not being occupation-related. The Katyn massacre was a Soviet measure to reduce possible resistance to occupation; the Holodomor was, to a significant extent, an attempt at terrorising farmers of occupied Ukraine. Hence, these two events fit into the article even now, but they will, of course, fit better when the rename is complete. Digwuren 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears there already is Category:Soviet World War II crimes. Digwuren 05:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to revert war trying to improve this ax-grinding exercise. You want forking on top of all other problems the article has? Have it. The reader is even more likely to quickly understand what's the worth of this article with this extra soapboxing. As tags are in place, the article can't do much damage to the Wikipedia's integrity. --Irpen 05:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing in Russian Wikipedia (or, Operation “I ask anyone to vote 'for'”)

Приглашаю всех проголосовать: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2#.D0.9F.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.B3.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.88.D0.B0.D1.8E_.D0.B2.D1.81.D0.B5.D1.85_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D1.81.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.8C 193.40.5.245 08:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)