Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 1

message: I changed the introduction to clarify that from a logical standpoint, there were 3 occupations, 4 if you want to consider the post-war period separately:
* First Soviet occupation
* Nazi occupation
* Second Soviet occupation (war-time)
* continuing into post-WWII occupation
—Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation of Occupations

message: ::See #Vote fraud alert. --Irpen
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support Doc15071969 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this scholarly enough for you?: "Latvia had been occupied by the Soviet Union for half a century." Dreifelds (1996), Chapter 2 - Latvia, section: "National Security", Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania Country Studies. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress. Washington, DC: Iwaskiw  Martintg 11:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't understand Irpen's objection. The article stops with chronology at 1941, don't know if this is because it is not yet developed or else.:Dc76 04:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just check the very first sentence: "The occupation of Baltic Republics generally refers to the occupation of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) by the Soviet Union, then Nazi Germany, and then Soviets again during World War II, and to the Soviet presence in the Baltics from 1945 until the re-establishment of their independence." Stops at 1941? --Irpen 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: The outcome of this vote is likely to be affected by the huge scale Wikipedia:Canvassing undertaken by User:Doc15071969. While the voting was going on at a slow and moderate pace, there seemed to have been mass influx of votes that poured in  after this notice at the very public forum likely to be attended by the supporters of the move. Additionally, the notice was made in the highly inflammatory form and included the massive ABF. This is not to doubt the good faith of the attracted voters but a similar announcement at, say, Portal:Russia would have likely affected the course of voting in a similar way, although in the opposite direction. However, as of now, no one attempted to canvass votes at the Russia Portal. --Irpen 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to complain to whomever who in a position to intervene or mediate. Suffice to say that I disagree with your characterizations,--and, after re-reading the policies you linked, I don't see how those characterizations can be supported by what they say,--but will maintain that this posting is a violation of ABF on your part. Towards those who have voted and myself. Doc15071969 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no assumptions from me towards those who voted. I stated that clearly and apparently you failed to read my entry above to the end. As for your cherry-picking of the boards to change the vote outcome, you would perhaps seen it differently if a similarly inflammatory message was posted to the Portal:Russia, which, btw, was not done. --Irpen 08:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A single notice on a closely related noticeboard isn't huge spam, it helps to quickly resolve issues, if we would anolish this practise some disputes could take even years to solve (how often do you visit, for example, article curd snack ?) -- Xil/talk 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote fraud alert

message: (It was getting a bit tough to edit such a long section...) As I mentioned, this should be the article that covers everything, as there is a continuity of Soviet actions (people re-deported after surviving the first time and only coming home in the 60's, the mass deportations in 1949, etc.). As well, the Nazis used the Soviet occupation for their political purposes, and the Soviets used the Nazi occupation for their purposes--something which can only be put into context if it's all in one place. I think as the article expands, we'll get a better feel. If some part gets too big/detailed, then we can consider turning it into a separate article--but it's too early to say what that would be. I've already agreed, though not with enthusiasm, that the more detailed country-specific articles can be split into smaller time sequences.
I appreciate Irpen's suggestion that if "we two" can come to some accomodation that it could help move things forward. Unfortunately, I attempted that approach in Transnistria at one point (perhaps not obviously with someone else), and while it yielded a useful accomodation, the voices on the side, of either side, were ultimately not adequately represented and I spent more time defending the compromise than moving anything else forward (which was the original intent!). So, let's keep muddling along and see how it goes.
Question #1: On a related issue, is there any consensus on how to deal with the "occupation/not-an-occupation" issue? I can certainly put in the citations for what I wrote which is stuck in the Occupation of Latvia article right now (and there are numerous more citations added since). Are we thinking better as a section here (might be a bit long), or as a separate article? I'm leaning toward a separate article at this point. Frankly, it can then also be a single lightning rod for all those who want to allege, as Regnum recently did in an article, that where Estonia is concerned, for example, people mostly died of old age under so-called Soviet oppression. (And plain out lies about the numbers it quotes from the Estonia white paper.) I'm open to suggestions.
Question #2: On things like what Soviet era encyclopedias say about the Baltic Entente or what Latvian newspapers published about the Soviet invasion, etc., do we have any idea on where best to put those? Baltic Entente would likely go in the discussion of the term occupation article, it's less obvious what to do with newspaper articles. For now, we could just say if it mentions only one country, then country-specific; if more than one country, then "Baltic states."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regard to question #1, given that there are plenty of sources that confirm the occupation, it is not necessary to have a section concerning the "occupation/not-an-occupation" issue, let alone a separate article. Don't you recall what happened in the Occupation of Latvia, you expended all that effort on a similar section, only to be accused of engaging OR. A separate article would no doubt be considered a POV fork in the future. We have a wealth of evidence that occupation occured. It is up those opposed to that view to come up with new or existing sources that support not-an-occupation view, not for us to continue to dance to their tune and endlessly provide further evidence and proof. So what if the article is tagged for now, our focus should be to continue to develop the article and ensure all parts are correctly cited in full compliance of Wikipedia policies. Martintg 08:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right Whiskey, there's really no dispute in the world community about the existence or non-existence of the Soviet occupation. But the fact that some Wikipedia editors still actively insist as if denying the occupation could somehow be more 'neutral' (and they act accordingly), proves that Wikipedia is incapable of ensuring the principles of verifiability and neutrality. Constanz - Talk 08:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just some thoughts/questions

message: I didn't summarily undo Dojarca's edit, but the "occupation" refers to the Soviet + Nazi + Soviet = one continuous period of being occupied. Using "OR" in there implies incorrectly there was some period when the Baltics were NOT occupied after the Soviet Union started that ball rolling. I'll leave this for comments for a day or two.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And/Or

message: *Is the word liberated quoted? 
*The paragraph doesn't inform about Baltic defence.Xx236 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is quoted in the article: Preparations, Conduct of 1944 Baltic Operation Described, Military History Journal (USSR Report, Military affairs), 1984-9, pp. 22-28,  which was written on the "40th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Soviet Baltic". I hope you can see the distinction that the Soviets liberated the "Soviet Baltic", the illegally annexed states, not independant Baltic states that existed before the Soviets occupied them in 1940. Martintg 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'll get around to expanding this section and mention the defence. Martintg 10:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  to liberate the "Soviet Baltic peoples" 

message: Hi,
I’ve just found at the gigantic Time magazine web archive an article written in 1947 about the annexation of the Baltic countries by the USSR: The Steel Curtain.
Here’s an excerpt:
“(…)For centuries, Baltic peasants have labored for their feudal lords—Swedes, Russians, Poles, Germans. Today, the Baltic peasant serves an old master under a new form of serfdom. He serves Communist Russia.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were forced, at the point of Red Army guns, to join the Soviet Union in 1940. Ever since then, Russia's westward window on the Baltic Sea has been tightly shuttered. Said one Lithuanian recently: ‘We don't speak of the Iron Curtain, as that is not a strong enough expression. Our country lies behind the Steel Curtain.’ From refugees' reports, letters, rumors and official Soviet decrees, a picture of life behind the Steel Curtain can be pieced together.”
If you think that something in the article could be put as source or reference to this Wikipedia article, feel free to do that.--MaGioZal 18:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An article for your reading

message: The original troops under the pacts of mutual assistance already outnumbered the standing armies of the Baltics, for example, Latvia's peacetime army (and remember it was neutral in the war) was around 16,000--it's incorrect to say that only with the invasion that the Baltic armies were outnumbered. The "sense" should be re-edited to return to the original. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it looks like the Soviet Union didn't feel that way. That 30000 Soviet troops stationed in Latvia could overwhelm or outnumber the Latvian 16000 and felt it necessary to invade with  additional forces. According to the source on the Estonian Occupation page, about 90000 additional troops crossed the Estonian border after the ultimatum. Therefore I personally can't see any reasons to argue against those facts and claim here that the stationed soviet forces outnumbered Baltic forces since the soviets didn't feel that way. Also we'd need to consider that civil defense units, like Kaitseliit in Estonia was a considerable military force, the first that was disarmed by the soviets after the invasion in 1940. There were similar units in Latvia and Lithuania--Termer 10:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Troop levels

message: Colchicum 11:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good sources

message: Please be aware that the term "occupation" is a legal term and could be used appropriately only within boundaries of international law. 
*::Thank you for lecturing! According to the European Union, USA, NATO member states, Switzerland and Australia and last but not least according to the Baltic states they were occupied by the USSR in 1940.--Termer 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: laughing out loud... Please give me the reference for NATO official document about that recognition. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The treaties are made freely. If someone was coerced into international treaty, then this treaty is invalid. If these treaties are invalid, Lithuania should transfer Western Lithuania and Vilnus to Belarus. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh really? In Latvia Arajs Commando, in Estonia Ain-Ervin Mere, in Lithuania Lithuanian Security Police, Lithuanian Activist Front...
Please note that you're referring to nazi collaborates during the German occupation in the Baltic countries between 1941-1944 but the article is discussing the Soviet Occupation in 1940. --Termer 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You are welcome, but here I "write according to the sources" and not "according to Lithuanians", because it is kind of encyclopedia, you know. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you acknowledge here that you just pushing your propaganda/POV here? Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You are unaware of the simple fact that Russia unilaterally invalidated Peace of Riga concluded with Kaiser Germany? Many countries after the World War II also invalidated treaties made between them and Germany, like France  for example. And what? Moreover, you are unaware that Belarusian People Republic claimed its independence in 1919, in the borders including Western Belarus, Belostok and even Vilnus. Lithuanian state hadn't even existed at this moment. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Luckily, what you believe and what is reality are different. Suchcamp was set up by Polish pioneers. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ohh... And I forgot, by the way, to mention that no one had forced Baltic States into making the treaties with Soviet Union. 
*I personally consider this a direct insult!--Termer 08:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may complain!!! I also consider it a personal assault when someone mentions that USA exists despite the fact that these lands belong to native Indians living there. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please present the evidence. Because Lithuania in return for signing the treaty received its western territories and its now capital city of Vilnus. Before that, Vilnus was actually Belarusian town, not Lithuanian. If Lithuanians dispute treaties and claim occupation, the next logical step is the return by Lithuania of its Western territories and Vilnus to Belarus. To my astonishment, all articles on Baltic states shamefully hide the facts of territorial gains due to Soviet Union by Baltic States.
*thank you for your info, Vilnius has been Lithuanian city  since 1253 --Termer 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Lithuania was formed as an independent state only by Bolsheviks if you like. Please, could you tell me how Lithuanian state was called in 1253? Teutonic orden? Your lands were called Zhemoitia at these times and they were German. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I, even don't mention that modern Lithuania uses old Belarusian coat of arms (Pursuit - pagonya) which is not Lithuanian. The old Lithuanian (or Zhemoitia - its old name) coat of arms is the bear on the shield, and not knight pursuit. Why nobody mentioned that fact in English Wikipedia? Why nobody mentioned the fact that after Lithuania received Vilnus from Soviet Union all Poles and Belarusian were expelled by Lithuanians from the city. It is could be clearly traced by using Polish and Belarusian metrics. So, if Soviet Union is occupation, than current holding of Vilnus and Western territories by Lithuania is occupation also. Vlad fedorov 03:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please acknowledge yourself with WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Next time I would report your rudeness at Administrator's Noticeboard. Vlad fedorov 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have to respond with the exact same words. I haven't encountered such ignorant and brutal Russian imperialist POV in reality before. Not to mention direct insults that I didn't respond to accordingly..--Termer 10:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How could you reconcile it with the fact that I am not Russian and I don't live in Russia? Leaving this apart I never met such a brutal Lithuanian imperialist POV in reality before I met you. Vlad fedorov 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't need to create another article. What I argue here - is the inclusion of opposing interpretations in that article. According to which there was no any occupation of Baltics and which you censor out of this article constantly. Vlad fedorov 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * All you need to do is provide a reputable scholarly reference which examines/supports the official Russian position that the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally under international law. All the rest of the reasons "why not occupation" are WP:OR personal interpretations at best. If and only if the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally under international law would they at that point qualify as no longer occupied. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is encyclopedia, not a court room. It is only important how this term was applied in scholarly sources that we cite in the article. Please also see Occupation of Iraq and List of military occupations for examples of using "occupation" term in WP.Biophys 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on the use of the term "occupation" by some POV authors 

message: Time magazine has put online all of their issues, there is some interesting material dating from 1940's, for those who think the term "occupation" was a Cold War construct read this from the Monday, Jul. 01, 1940 edition: Russia's Sphere. Russia was preoccupied with consolidating her own position to the east of Hitler's Europe. On the heels of her occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, those three countries set up left-wing Governments that looked like steppingstones to complete sovietization. Hotly Russia's official news agency Tass denied that her Baltic grab was aimed against Germany. Tass said only 18 or 20 divisions, not the 100 reported from London, had moved into the Baltic States. Germany took the occupation calmly. Germany's calm was doubtless real, since last year's deals gave Russia a free hand in the Baltic as well as Bessarabia.  Martintg 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time magazine sources 

message: In timeline section some people keep reinserting original research on the leaving of Lithuania by Antanas Smetona. I refer to the particular undisguised phrase "so that he couldn't be used to legalize occupation". Vlad fedorov 04:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly Vlad fedorov in case opinionated things are claimed, those should be referenced and clearly stated "who said so". Please feel free to add 'citation needed' tag to this and in case not replied at least within 2 weeks, please remove it or have it rephrased according to available sources.--Termer 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in article 

message: Re-occupaqtion is a controversial POV term reflecting only one side's point of view.--Dojarca 09:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to add facts according to the alternative sources available. Even though it is a minority opinion, the fact is that the current Russian government has a different take on the events than the Western sources provide. So please, go ahead and state the facts the way the Russian government is interpreting the history. Please just keep it clear from where the cited source come from, like it's done regarding the occupation in 1940. Thanks!--Termer 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First the controversial caption should be changed.--Dojarca 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-occupaqtion 

message: Since Vlad Fedorov saw fit to change what I had entered for the Atlantic Charter into something both watered-down and inaccurate (here), I replaced what was agreed to by the parties with a direct quote from the referenced source (you will note only cosmetic additions, no phrases I had already entered needed to be changed in any way). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaties 

message: Someone more competent should include in the timeline also the incident with the Polish submarine in Tallinn, what Russia used as an justification to its actions. Orze%C5%82 incident
:Okay, I've added it. Martintg 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline