Talk:Military occupations by the Soviet Union/Archive 1

message: ===Hungary===
Post-war Hungary (1944-90) was a Sovereign state by international law, rather than "occupied territory". Also, Soviet troops were stationed and regulated by perhaps unequal but real international bilateral treaties and were confined to bases rather than were occupational authorities. The suppression of 1956 Budapest is a single event, not 1944-1990 "occupation. --Irpen 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to commence original counting of troops, or go by the sources? Digwuren 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's your personal view, however official Czech Republic disagrees with you  Martintg 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a source that treats the whole Warsaw Pact Organisation as an instrument of occupation, and also explains how the occupation was deliberately disguised for political purposes.  I will get to adding it to the article, eventually. Digwuren 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, no, because no RS speak of such an occupation, while they do in the instance of the other countries. Personally, I do believe Russia - the great, true Russia of the Tsars - was occupied by the Soviets and continues to be by their KGB holdovers, but that's irrelevant. We work with RS here, and those sources do back up the notion (plain as daylight in any case) that the other countries were occupied. Biruitorul 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  In essence, Soviets occupied Russia, and killed its original leaders, the Czar family.  However, Soviets being based in Russia, such acts are not generally referred to as "occupation" but "revolution" by the relevant WP:RS.  Accordingly, the policy obliges Wikipedians to do the same, and a Wikipedian's individual assessment, no matter how intelligent he or she may be, doesn't count. Digwuren 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overemphasizing the role of RS against base policies such as NPOV is against the spirit of wikipedia. And it's great to see a extreme nationalist hungarian site being considered a RS. It says a lot about the propagandistic intentions of the ones who put it.Anonimu 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Particular cases

message: Post-war Hungary (1944-90) was a Sovereign state by international law, rather than "occupied territory". Also, Soviet troops were stationed and regulated by perhaps unequal but real international bilateral treaties and were confined to bases rather than were occupational authorities. The suppression of 1956 Budapest is a single event, not 1944-1990 "occupation. --Irpen 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungary

message: Same a Hungary. --Irpen 16:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to commence original counting of troops, or go by the sources? Digwuren 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's your personal view, however official Czech Republic disagrees with you  Martintg 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Czechoslovakia

message: Same as above. If the coverage was restricted to the early years, it would have been one thing. You stretch the "Soviet occupation" to the re-unification. E. DE was an internationally and universally recognized state, not occupied territory. --Irpen 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a source that treats the whole Warsaw Pact Organisation as an instrument of occupation, and also explains how the occupation was deliberately disguised for political purposes.  I will get to adding it to the article, eventually. Digwuren 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, no, because no RS speak of such an occupation, while they do in the instance of the other countries. Personally, I do believe Russia - the great, true Russia of the Tsars - was occupied by the Soviets and continues to be by their KGB holdovers, but that's irrelevant. We work with RS here, and those sources do back up the notion (plain as daylight in any case) that the other countries were occupied. Biruitorul 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  In essence, Soviets occupied Russia, and killed its original leaders, the Czar family.  However, Soviets being based in Russia, such acts are not generally referred to as "occupation" but "revolution" by the relevant WP:RS.  Accordingly, the policy obliges Wikipedians to do the same, and a Wikipedian's individual assessment, no matter how intelligent he or she may be, doesn't count. Digwuren 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overemphasizing the role of RS against base policies such as NPOV is against the spirit of wikipedia. And it's great to see a extreme nationalist hungarian site being considered a RS. It says a lot about the propagandistic intentions of the ones who put it.Anonimu 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: East Germany

message: As repeated restored by Digwuren:
:With a few exceptions, such as Romania where Soviet troops left in 1958, this occupation lasted up to the Autumn of Nations of 1989, and in some cases, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Same as above. Soviets were an occupational authority only immediately after the war. Then the countries became sovereign and internationally and universally recognized. Even though they may be called Satellite states this is not one and the same as occupied territory while the entire article treats those as such. Stationing foreign troops according to bilateral treaties is not the same thing as occupying someone. 
I am removing this weasel sentence. I am also tagging a sentence that provides author's own definition of the Soviet occupation. --Irpen 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not defining the concept in this sentence at all.  I am merely summarising the history of Soviet occupation. Digwuren 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:OR. --Irpen 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Can somebody give examples of this zoo in the article, and maybe copyedit the article to remove such phrases? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the zoo was added as a way to make fun of the Cartel's fondness of meaningless tags, as can be seen very vividly on Soviet occupation of Romania and Occupations of Latvia.  It probably doesn't refer to anything specific, but if there's one of these meaningless tags, I don't see why not all four. Digwuren 20:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the article contained few weasel words when I checked it. I added the peacock for better color balance and the peacock icon looked kindof cute. Don't know what peacock phrases are supposed to mean exactly, but I guess they are there with all other evil things aswell. I demand more animal templates! It's boring if people use only POV and weasel template to discredit articles. Suva 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting (weasel, peacoc)

message: Sowieci do domu or "Soviets go home" was a popular slogan of protest against Soviet occupation and terror in countries they conquered. It was often printed or sprayed in cities where Soviets located their invading troops. Perhaps somebody has a photo of that slogan as it would be useful illustration of society's protest towards the occupation. I think the slogan was widespread in several occupied countries-I found  sources relating its usage in relation to protests Lithuania, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Poland.
As to photos I found a few:
Here is a good photo: from spontenous manifestation of Polish people against Soviet occupation in 1989 before consulate of SU.
And here from Kraków
Unfortunately I don't know the status of the copyright of those pictures. Perhaps somebody has his own personal photos, I think the slogan is still present on some old buildings in my city. Anyway it would be good illustration to the article.
--Molobo 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Soviets go home!" 

message: *As Google searches are not legitimate references, I've removed these refs:Soviet Occupation of Czechoslovakia at google books, Soviet occupation of Hungary at google scholar, Soviet occupation of Hungary at google books, Soviet occupation of Austria at google books. They might, however, lead to good sources. Canuckle 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Such searches, if included at all, should be on the talk page. Digwuren 00:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: google searches removed

message: Sadly Ghirlandajo has engaged in forced name spree by creating several redirects, and stub articles so the Soviet Occupation title can't be used. I don't know enough Wiki editory to change it back, neverthless I tried, perhaps somebody better at this can do something so the article can have original name.--Molobo 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it was extremly unconstructive move, particularly as it moved the article to a spot occupied by an unencyclopedic article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe (2nd nomination)) - I wonder if this was to support its AfDing? Sigh. Such obviously controversial moves should be discussed at talk, and proper procedures (WP:RM) should be followed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, at least four editors are against your proposals. Av0id3r 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced name changes by Ghirlandajo 

message: The article is now protected from moves. This is to stop the move war, and is not an endorsement of a particular title/purpose/capital-T Truth. The title Allied occupation of Europe seems to have been the preferred title of a single editor attempting to repurpose the page into a replacement for a deleted page of the same title. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there were three and now there are four. "Occupation zones" documented term doesn't have two separate meanings for two sides. 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This means that the current status is:
1. There's Soviet occupation.  It's a link to here.
2. This page here, Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe is roughly what the article's scope was, except that it unnecessarily restricts the scope to Eastern Europe.  This tends to leave out Mongolia, and may leave out Estonia, which is sometimes considered to be in Northern Europe instead.
I believe the article should be moved back to Soviet occupation, to match its contents.  I've never done a WP:RM, though, so help is welcome; however, I'll try to read up on the process. Digwuren 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I think it should be moved to either Allied occupation of Europe to represent both sides or to "Soviet eliberation" to represent only Russian side. Av0id3r 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't, but an administrator can, if we request a move through WP:RM. Digwuren 22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protection 

message: I'm hereby requesting that the page be moved back to Soviet occupation, where it was before Ghirlandajo disruptively and irreversably moved it here. Digwuren 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather get it right with a strong consensus, possibly with peer review, than rush to meet an arbitrary WP:DYK deadline. Canuckle 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern.  However, I also point out that DYK's main purpose is to get attention to the article, and thus, potential new contributors.  Therefore, I believe it's better to figure out a quick good compromise now and after the DYK has done its job, try to forge the perfect outcome, than to hope to get the best with whom we have, and miss the DYK.  Or, to put in other words: DYK will bring in more people, and more people will mean stronger consensus. Digwuren 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This circus cannot be featured at the main page, even at the DYK section. Such articles at main page would bring Wikipedia into disrepute. --Irpen 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that you do not intend to coöperate in improving this article, and instead prefer disruption, in whatever ways may be available, to avoid this page getting the DYK attention? Digwuren 03:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that's not what I am saying. I am glad to cooperate in development of the articles whose encyclopedic scope I can comprehend. The pre-war occupations dumped together with the running over the countries in the course of the war (totally different and unrelated things) with Mongolia and Afghanistan on top is not the encyclopedic scope. It is pure and simple WP:SYNT specifically prohibited by the policies. --Irpen 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you then please counsel Ghirlandajo and ask him refrain from engaging in these circus antics, it is very disruptive to Wikipedia. Martintg 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stay on topic, Martin, and avoid offensive statements. --Irpen 03:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's offensive, I will need to ask that you please counsel Ghirlandajo, and ask him refrain from offensive statements. Digwuren 03:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would counsel you to stay on topic. --Irpen 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Here's a proposal:
* Soviet occupation should contain an overview of the long-term Soviet occupations in the Eastern bloc.  This would include the Baltic states, Poland and Czechoslovakia, but not the WWII-era short-lived Finnish Democratic Republic or Afghanistan.  It would, however, link to List of Soviet military occupations, and Soviet occupation in Asia.  In particular, the article's lead should carefully explain that the article discusses only the most commonly scholarly discussed cases of occupation, and that there are "border cases" not discussed.
* List of Soviet military occupations would be a WP:LIST, and contain all Soviet military occupations, with one-sentence overviews.
* Since there is currently no Soviet occupation of Mongolia, the little summary we have here would be moved into this article, and serve as the basis for further improvement.
* Soviet occupation in Asia would contain the Kuril/Afghanistan/Mongolia entries.
;Variation of the proposal
* Soviet occupation would be a redirect to Soviet occupation in Europe, where the European Soviet occupations would be overviewed. Digwuren 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check WP:SOAP. Besides, Soviet occupation in Asia that would dump together totally unrelated Kurils, Afganistan and Mongolia is Digwuren's invention  and belongs to his sandbox, not the article space. --Irpen 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal by Digwuren 

message: My intent in developing this article was creating an overview article of Soviet occupation the concept.  By now, however, some of the entries have grown lather largish, and it might be prudent to start merging some of their content back to the main articles.
Can I get a stipulation that the article should be an overview article, and thorough examination of individual cases would be done in separate articles? Digwuren 16:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: OK, once again, I was bold and moved the article to Soviet occupations since that seemed to be the consensus (with the possible exception of Ghirla).  As I've stated, I do not like this title but I also think we should tackle one issue at a time so I figured we'd start by moving it here first.  I'd really like to hear what other people think of moving this article to Soviet expansionism next.
Also, I copied Irpen's last revision to Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.  As I've stated above, there needs to be more text written about the Warsaw Pact with a link to that article as well as some text written about the Cold War.
There's a lot more work to be done but hopefully my edits and moves have provided a more stable base for us to work from instead of spending all our time edit warring and jawboning on the Talk Page.
--Richard 00:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as this article is concerned, this is merely a soapbox from its inception that prevented it from becoming an encyclopedic article by its very design. Now, that it is out of the way, we can concentrate on the valid concept of the Soviet geopolitical expansion in Europe in the aftermath of the WWII. Thanks Richard. --Irpen 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Richard. This step by step process is the best way to proceed. Soviet expansionism is worth some consideration, as it would span both pre and post war periods and geography too. We already have an article on American hegemony, so Irpen and Ghirla shouldn't continue this disruptive behaviour. But let's go baby steps first and whip this article in shape before doing another rename. So can this page be unprotected too now. Martintg 01:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved article here per Talk Page 

message: *Now that the constant name-changing has stopped - and at risk of appearing to be pushing a point - what about these areas? Soviet troops occupied northern Iran temporarily post-WWII, the presence in Caucasus was termed an occupation : In hindsight, the Caspian Region and Central Asia suffered economically from the Russian and later the Soviet occupation through its distorted development.   In Central Asia, George Wheeler's article says: Wheeler’s writing focused on the history of Central Asia from the time of the Russian conquest of the region in the mid-nineteenth century to Soviet occupation of Central Asia in the 20th century. Wheeler’s work is notable because he was one of the few scholars working to promote Central Asian Studies at a time when the field was in decline due to travel and research restrictions Soviet authorities imposed on academics. Wheeler engaged in the debates that raged in Central Asia Studies during the Cold War: what was the nature of Soviet colonialism in Central Asia and how was Central Asian ethnic identity formed. and another here: "During the Soviet occupation of the region since the early 20th century, Central Asia remained completely cut off from the outside world and isolated from world events, as the USSR had closed the Central Asian borders with Iran, Afghanistan, China, and Turkey" . I'd like to hear your views. Canuckle 01:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caucasus, Iran, Central Asia?

message: *There's a teeny typo in the first sentence. I'd fix it but there's a block on edits Canuckle 01:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Richard 05:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Done.--Richard 05:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It is requested that immediate edits be made to this protected page.

message: Haven't had the energy to read through again slowly in detail, however, all the usual sides are being drawn once again. How about we just stick to reputable sources which specifically address the "occupation" of X for period Y by the USSR. I trust actions like disruptively creating articles to redirect readers to inappropriate places will be censured and punished appropriately. Just another instance of dispute and disrupt without bringing any sources to the table. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources, sources, sources

message: Ie "Polish civilian population in Łódź greeting the Red Army forces liberating Poland from Nazi occupation, January 1945." What has this to do with soviet occupations? Nobody objects to kicking some Nazi ass, occupation starts when the "liberators" refuse to go home and start throwing over governments. Right now they feel VERY much out of place. --Alexia Death the Grey 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be common practice of making these kind of photographs, I vaguely remember there were similar photos about nazi military entering some country aswell. They are mostly staged though sometimes even at gunpoint. Suva 06:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the pictures. If someone restores them please state clearly how they are relevant in other than trying to make an covert WP:POINT. However, Id like to see some pictures of soviet military bases in these countries. That would fit.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of the "Greeting Red Army" kind  

message: Where did they go!?--Alexia Death the Grey 05:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the baltic states sections? 

message: I am unprotecting this article.  Hopefully edit warring will stop.  Please seek consensus on the Talk Page for controversial edits.  Consider following the WP:BRD model.  Good luck and happy editing.  --Richard 05:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting page 

message: Richard mentioned "Soviet expansionism" could provide context and meaning to the various occupations. In this context other things could be brought into the mix, such as Soviet involvement in third world communist insurgencies, etc. What does everyone think about this? Martintg 06:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article will be big enough whit the current scope+ soviet occupation is common term often sought for.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose "Soviet expansionism" was a concept used by the Americans to justify its policies of Containment, whether it was real or just a political concept is harder to tell without access to Soviet sources, unlike "Soviet occupation" which seems easier to source as fact. Martintg 07:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet expansionism 

message: This edit warring has to stop here. Please be aware that if it continues now that the page has been unprotected, it will be dealt with via blocks rather than further protection. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 09:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning to all involved 

message: Stating in the lead that Russia denies all the so-called occupations requires appropriate sources. Nothing is said about it in the Russia denies Baltic 'occupation' article. Alæxis¿question? 10:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia's position 

message: I think one should focus on political repressions conducted by the Communist governments in Eastern Europe rather than on the Soviet occupation. Main issue is not the occupation, but what the occupants and their puppet governments have done. The death and suffering resulted not from national or ethnic conflicts ("Russians" versus others), but from establishment of a new social system.Biophys 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the relevant literature, these are generally called occupations.  Call them something unsourceable else would constitute WP:OR. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Occupation" requires that the foreigners do the oppressing. If the local puppets oppress their own people, then that does not automatically equal occupation (even if some sources may try to blur that distinction). --Latebird 09:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of it like this.  Soviet ideology denied the concept of ethnicity as relevant in such matters, and instead, overstressed the rôle of class.  By Soviet interpretation, what happened is that many people of a foreign class -- supposedly, the peasants and industrial workers -- came to dispense oppression onto the local people -- supposedly, kulaks and factory-owners. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Occupation is the term that sources, lots of them use for these events. Thus it warrants use and showing here. It does not matter what we think or know, sources matter.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not dispute the termin "occupation". One can write separately about "occupation" and "repressions" as two different, although related subjects. Repressions were not neccessarily conducted by "Russians", for example in Yugoslavia. I just wanted to tell that too much fighting is going on about "occupation", and not nearly enough was written about actual repressions by the national cadres (yes, under guidance of CPSU and KGB). See the articles about the corresponding socialist countries. Only article Communist Romania probably describes this topic well.Biophys 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good points. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Reply to Termer. Based on your Quisling analogy, one could tell that Tito was a man who run the Soviet show in Yugoslavia. He was not independent, but directed by Stalin. However, Stalin decided that Tito can not be trusted and ordered to kill him. Stalin failed because Tito purged Soviet NKVD agents who surrounded him. It was a very simple mechainsm of control: if a satellite leader (say in North Korea or China) refused to follow a Stalin's order, he would be killed by NKVD agents from his closest surrounding, and Tito was well aware of that (later on, Andropov tried to poison Amin who did not follow instructions from Moscow). I am not pushing anything here - this is just a discussion.Biophys 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: But Quisling didn't run the show. Terboven did. DrKiernan 11:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The problem was establishment of Communist regimes rather than Soviet occupation

message: The more fundamental problem of the article is throwing unrelated issues that took place under widely different circumstances and totally different time frames together to make a WP:POINT. The context, the time and the reasons of  the events in Mongolia, Kurils, Agkhanistan and Eastern Europe are so much different that there is no way to put them together except in two narrow case: the article about the Military history of the USSR and the harmless (while useless) List of military operations of the USSR. Only sources devoted to an overall history study these widely different events together. Putting them together in this article is mere WP:SYNT, a product of another WP:POINT by the same disruptive user. --Irpen 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is easy to check. If there are any reliable sources which describe these occupations as related events or as parts of the same phenomenon, this is NOT WP:SYNT. I belive there are such references already in this article. If not, they should be found.Biophys 19:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any source devoted to the Soviet history overall would mention every such event.  The same way, any source about the US history would deal with Annexation of Texas and the Invasion of Iraq. They belong together to the History of the United States article all right as well as many other historic events. But pasting Iraq and Texas together and Bay of Pigs invasion with Invasion of Grenada on top does not add up to an encyclopedic article. --Irpen 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not at all. WP:SYNT says: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C., and so on. I am talking about a source that considers position C (not A and B separately), namely the question of Soviet occupations in general, as a certain phenomenon. If you have a source that descibes "US occupations", you can make an article "US occupations", and this will not be WP:SYNT at all. This applies to anything. If a source tells about rhodopsin, one can make a WP article about rhodopsin. An example of appropriate subject would be also Communist states, because they are described as a certain phenomenon in literature. Biophys 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you must oppose the article Overseas expansion of the United States for the same reason? The events described in Soviet occupations are very much related to Soviet expansionism and the US policy of Containment. Being born and raised in the West, I can assure you that the concept of Soviet expansionism was very real here, not some imagined synthesis of unrelated events Martintg 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Irpen, are there sources that say Soviet occupation was limited to one geographic area? I don't know enough to say it's a synth or not, but I sure would like to see more discussion on both sides of what sources say. Canuckle 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is also a valid subject for a WP article.Biophys 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a valid subject? And per who is this whatever a valid subject? -Irpen 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that Soviet expansionism is just as valid as "Soviet occupations", but it is a different subject. Maybe one should also make Soviet expansionism article in the future.Biophys 01:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Soviet occupation" in general is not a valid topic because this is a collocation of two words that apply to things that are totally unrelated to each  other except that they are part of the Military history of the USSR. There is nothing in common between retaking Kurils in 1945 and sending troops to Afghanistan in 1979 an no one studies them together unless in the general history articles. --Irpen 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse they are related, it's the same old RussianSoviet imperialism in operation. If you doubt it, read these 899 books on the topic . It's no more a collocation of two words than Overseas expansion of the United States is a collocation of "Overseas", "expansion" and "United States". Both are valid articles. Martintg 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that Sakhalin and Kurils are not even mentioned in the article, I don't see why I should have to. Martintg 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, that's interesting.  The occupation of Mongolia and the Kurils used to be in this article.  What happened to them and why are they not in this article any more? --Richard 06:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you recall removing Mongolia from the article some time ago Richard? .  Martintg 09:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: But there are plenty of books that relate the Soviet occupations of Afghanistan and Eastern Europe as part of the same old story . Martintg 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of.  But I did that when this article was titled Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.  Under that title, Mongolia, Afghanistan and the Kuril Islands were clearly out of scope.  Under the current title, they are in scope.  We should restore Mongolia and the Kuril Islands here until we resolve the WP:SYNT problem that Irpen has raised.  --Richard 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your issue is with the template then, not the article. Martintg 04:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bukovina and Afghanistan are both in the article. --Irpen 04:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bukovina was originally part of Romania, and this Encyclopedia article deals with both Romanian and Afghan occupations in the article on Soviet imperialism . Martintg 06:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If we want to find a compromise, let's respect each other's views. Was Afganistan occupied by the Soviet forces? Yes, it was. Could one include it in a List of countries occupied by the Soviet Union? Yes, one could. So, let's keep it here. On the other hand, Irpen has a valid point. Why all these  occupations are combined together in the same article? Were they described altogether in the literature as a certain phenomenon and why? This should be more clearly explained in the introduction based on sources. I can try to do this later.Biophys 14:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, Irpen, but most of these Soviet occupations are actually described in the literature as a common phenomenon; they are analyzed and compared by historians in numerous publications. I checked the references and made a couple of changes in the introduction to make this more clear. For example, one could make an article about G-protein coupled receptors and describe rhodopsin, melanocortin hormone receptor, etc. as specific examples in this article. Same thing is here. This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:SYNT.Biophys 19:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet subjugation of EE is indeed frequently looked together. But not together with, say, Afghanistan unless the topic of the study is an overall Soviet policy or history. No one just puts the occupations together and says "hey look!" --Irpen 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Check out the Annexation of Texas article and try putting it together with the Invasion of Grenada and Invasion of Iraq into one US occupations article. Next, try DYKing it and see how it flies through AfD. Good luck with that. --Irpen 06:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That book mentions no occupation of Romania. I didn't verify the others, but this lie makes the claims above doubtful.Anonimu 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "a lie"? That's a heavy accusation. On page 68, the source says "Two other republics that were similarly incorporated into the USSR during 1940 were Moldavia (formerly part of Romania)..." Canuckle 22:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no occupation of Romania mentioned. Moldavia (actually Bessarabia)  had a very complex situation: interwar Romanian rule not recognized by the US and the Soviets, and the treaty who was supposed to acknowledge Romania's rule never entered into force. To claim that the neutral formulation "formerly part of Romania" equates occupation is a lie.Anonimu 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, WP:SYN is about making logical conclusions by WP contributors (A+B=>C), which is equal to WP:OR. Here we are talking about choice of an article topic. Can one make an article about G-protein coupled receptors, or US occupations, or Soviet occupations, etc? Yes, absolutely. And what would be a subject of such article? Obviously, G-protein coupled receptors, US occupations, and so on! Of course, one would have to make sure that each particular example is indeed a  G-protein coupled receptor, a US occupation, etc - based on sources. This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:SYN.Biophys 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously, the removal of Romania that WAS occupied by Soviet military forces from article "Soviet occupations" is a typical example of removing sourced material to satisfy someone's personal POV. As such, this is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Hence my revert.Biophys 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussing different remote events of US military operations within the concept of American imperialism may be fine, but this is not the same as pasting Iraq War and Annexation of Texas in the would be US occupations article with the arbitrary scope. The concept of the Soviet imperialism would be an equally valid article's topic (even though it would be more encyclopedic to first develop a Soviet foreign policy article and spin ogg the imperialism if this gets too detailed. But a list of occupations themselves just pasted together outside of the imperialism or expansionism scope is nothing but WP:POINT. --Irpen 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could start with Soviet Empire as the umbrella article and work down to foreign policy and military or civilian occupation. And I'm not enamored of the list format. If that's the point-y part of this article then let's discuss. Canuckle 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Can one provide examples of Soviet occupation in the article about Soviet occupations? Yes, one can.Biophys 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:SYNT]]

message: Soviet troops were, it appears, in Bulgaria from 1944 to 1947. Are we looking at a "Soviet occupation of Bulgaria" article? Biruitorul 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely.Biophys 22:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One also should not forget about Soviet occupation of North Korea.Biophys 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgaria

message: This article almost gives new meaning to the description WP:POV. It misses at least 3 real occupations carried out by Soviet forces (this is off the bat, I can probably name couple of others) and emphasize such grievances as destruction of civilian houses in the course of war (what a heartless action, no other country ever harmed civilian house during the war). I suggest that all editors who doesn't share Baltic/Polish POV should step aside for a week or two to give our Estonian friends and Piotrus enough time to talk their hearts off. Otherwise you just make junk science look credible. In it's current form article is self-incriminating. It is so incomplete and unbalanced, no sane person can take it seriously. RJ CG 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on ones definition of sanity. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What we are seeing here is the glorification of the Soviets and an attempt to re-write the outcome of the Cold War. Martintg 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the suggestion of RJ CG that Irpen and some others should "step aside" is  reasonable. Termer and Marting could work for a few days to improve this article, in agreement with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Why not?Biophys 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion seems to be pretty much useless. But I can predict that we will end up with 20 articles about Soviet occupation in every single country, 20 articles about Communist repressions in each country, a List of Soviet-occupied countries, and yet other articles which describe Soviet expansionism everywhere (including Africa) and Soviet occupations everywhere (this article). Biophys 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice demonstration of wounded nationalistic pride

message: Hello Anonimu, I'd be more careful with throwing WP:NPA around. As far as I can see Biophys  has commented on your opinions and editing pattern not on you as a person. Please note that Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Thanks!--Termer 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If i'd say: "User:Termer is wrong whatever he says, because my opinion is the only real one", would you consider it a personal attack?Anonimu 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonimu: so you consider "you're wrong" as a personal attack? K. Lásztocska 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, but since you're wrong whatever you say, I must ignore you. ;)Anonimu 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If all opinions would be ignored we'd have a lot of "bitch", "fag", "motherfucker" and certainly lots of "your mamma's". Source don't guarantee quality. Confirmation bias is a widespread phenomenom on wikipedia (just look how many links to google book and scholar searches are posted on talkpages. People use snipets to support one position, even if the part of the book not accesible online actually criticize that position. The bad part is that the only thing preventing such a misuse of an otherwise valuable instrument is morality, a rara avis in wikipedia).Anonimu 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rich to see someone who just defended (scroll to the bottom) the cold-blooded slaughter of 200 unarmed civilians bemoan the lack of "morality" on Wikipedia. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a grip.Anonimu  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No personal attacks

message: I think we are debating what term to use to describe the relationship between Romania and the Soviet Union between 1946 and 1958.  The title of this section suggests several possibilities...Soviet occupation, puppet regime, client state, Soviet satellite.  
Being a staunch anti-Communist myself, I have no desire to sugar-coat any brutality or atrocities committed under the Communist-era.  However, I think it abuses the English language to use the word "occupation" to describe post-WWII relationships between the Soviet Union and Eastern European/Baltic countries.
To me, occupation means one thing.  There is no official pretense of an independent government.  All decisions and laws are made by the occupying country.  Usually, this occupation is backed by military force.  However, the key idea here is that the occupying country freely admits that it is occupying the territory and will not permit any semblance of an independent government, let alone an independent military.
If you look at Germany, Japan and Iraq, you will see that there is a clear period where there was an occupation.  If you look at South Vietnam, South Korea, Iraq and the Phillipines, you can see that there is a period where a putatively independent government is kept in power through the presence and use of foreign military forces.  However, this second category is not termed occupation.
Choosing to use a word other than occupation to describe Romania in the years 1946-1958 does not mean we have to whitewash what was done by the Communist Romanian government under duress or in collaboration with the Stalinist regime of the Soviet Union.  However, we must not allow nationalism or other political positions to pervert the English language by using a word in ways which diverge from common usage.
--Richard 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like one would consider the position of the CIA neutral.Anonimu 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, why not? Nothing the matter with that. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think one can reasonably argue that all Warsaw Pact countries were occupied by the Soviet Union as long as Brezhnev doctrine remained in force. This Andropov's "doctrine" meant that governments of the corresponding countries are controlled from Moscow. Hence the "occupation" is an appropriate term according to the definition above. However this position should be better supported by sources.Biophys 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fallacy. Supposing you were right, how could you explain Romania's position on prague '68?Anonimu 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance, Biophys, I say let's carve out a partial exception for Romania and probably Bulgaria (which remained a loyal Soviet satellite but which Soviet troops left in 1947). They were under duress in the sense that leaving the Communist orbit would have gotten them invaded, but they were not under military occupation after 1958 and 1947, respectively. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thisun. Romania, the independent pretty happy socialist state.Anonimu 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An outrageous myth. Romania was woefully miserable in the 1980s, and in the 1970s, plenty of dissidents or others who dared challenge the Bolshevik grip on power were also very, very unhappy. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Say Romania was miserable in the 70s and you'll most likely get linched by pensioner and even in proletarian neighborhoods. As for dissidents, as Michael Shafir said, the Romanian dissidence lived in Paris and it was called Paul Goma.Anonimu 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but's a proof that Byophis' argument was not valid.Anonimu 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the basis of several international treaties.Anonimu 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: According to a source I am looking at, Romania and North Korea gained independence after a period of Soviet occupation (so it was the occupation), whereas Albania and Yugoslavia were not occupied at all (Soviets tried to organize an internal coup agains Tito after 1948 and against Hoxha in 1961, but failed). There was a constant struggle between the socialist leaders of these "independent" contries and the Soviet Union. Ironically, there were even two attempts to overthrough Fidel Castro, when he refused to subordinate his secrted services to the KGB - also failure. But Fidel agreed when Soviet Union stopped "buying"  his sugar. Just look at the sources - everything is there. I simply have no time to do that.Biophys 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some historians refer to it as an occupation, but only some, and it's not "the generally agreed opinion", as shown by the lack of such concept in the most reliable encyclopedias of today (Britannica, Columbia, etc).Anonimu 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet occupation, puppet regime, client state, Soviet satellite

message: I saw earlier that you were interested in the official position of the Romanian government as concerns the existence or not of an occupation. 
As it happens, this position is clearly stated in the report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania. This document has been adopted by the Romanian parliament, so it represents the official position of Romania. You can find it 
here (in Romanian only).
The clear position, repeated at many places in the text, is that the Soviet troops were an occupation army from 1944 to 1958. Dpotop 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the position  of the president Traian Basescu and his comission, and had not been adopted by the Parliament, as Dpotop falsely claims. There is only one place, not many, where the soviet troops who left in 1958 are called "occupation army". In the rest of the document, they simply use "Soviet troops" or "Red army".Anonimu 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Anonimu, would a position (even a controversial revisionist one or wrong one) by this president suffice for you? Canuckle 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because according to the Romanian Constitution, the Parliament is the supreme representative organ of the Romanian people, not the president.Anonimu 13:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: # To Anonimu: You are right, not the parliament, nor the government, but the Presidency. Which is better, because international representation is mainly a prerogative of the President. So, it's official. Dpotop 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: # The period is called "Soviet occupation" or "occupation" in a dozen of places. In "Adobe Reader", search for "ocupa". Most hits are on the Soviet occupation: citations and original positions of the report. Dpotop 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty of using search to "prove" that "most" historians consider 47-58 to be "Soviet occupation" is that you can easily find dozens of documents which use "Soviet occupation" in the same document as "Romania".  But how do you search for documents which discuss the same period of time without using the phrase "Soviet occupation"?  Even if you exhaustively researched the topic, it would still be OR because the results of your hard work would not be in a peer-reviewed journal and thus would not be a reliable source.  We need to find an authoritative source which uses the phrase "Soviet occupation" in a context which makes it clear that this is the consensus of the academic and political community.  Such a source may already have been cited in one of the relevant Wikipedia articles or Talk Pages.  --Richard 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official position of the Romanian Presidency: The Soviets occupied Romania from 1944 to 1958 

message: Interesting piece by The Economist regarding need to present Soviet occupation on par with Nazi atrocities in movies:
Third should be the “Forest brothers” of the Baltic states and western Ukraine, as well as the Polish “Home Army”. They maintained a doomed struggle against the Soviet occupiers in some cases until the late 1950s. The last Estonian partisan, August Sabbe, survived until 1978. Betrayed by traitors in Britain’s MI6 in the late 1940s, their story makes Rambo’s adventures in Indochina seem like Disney-style pap.
More here
The material can be used as source in legacy section regarding lack of knowledge about the situation in the West and ongoing process of documenting the Soviet occupiation of various countries post-WW2.
--Molobo 17:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for presentation of Soviet occupation in arts 

message: A very valuable site regarding relations between Soviet Union and occupied regions:
The Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security (PHP, the former Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact), provides new scholarly perspectives on contemporary international history by collecting, publishing, and interpreting formerly secret governmental documents. In response to the declassification of NATO records and the growing availability of documents from archives in Eastern and Central Europe, PHP as a cooperative undertaking of more than twenty partner institutes brings together leading Cold War historians, archivists, and government officials. The findings are presented to the specialist academic community at conferences and published both in print and on the PHP website. Since its establishment in 1999, the project has collected thousands of pages of material on security-related issues of the Cold War, published a large number of online documentaries and publications on central issues such as mutual threat perceptions and alliance management, and organized several major international conferences on war  lanning, intelligence, and intra-bloc tensions.The thrust of PHP research interest is in the recent historical origins and development of current security issues and institutions on the basis of newly available documentary evidence.
Numerous sources exist on the site that I am certain will help us expand the article.
--Molobo 17:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valuable site 

message: The Soviet occupation of North Korea, though short-lived, should definitely be either detailed here or in its own separate article. As I see no links to such a topic either in a "See Also" section nor even in the Soviet Occupations template, am I right in assuming that such an article doesn't exist? LordAmeth 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. It lasted several years if I remember correctly. There is no such article. The initial agreement about separation of North and South Korean territories was concluded between Soviet Union and US. Stalin still controlled Korea even after withdrawal the Soviet military forces, so his order was needed to start the Korean War.Biophys 15:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea 

message: :See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupations
For a previous discussion on this topic see Archive 1: WP:SYNT and  the older Archive 1: The neutrality of this article is disputed --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for deletion

message: Since the best thing for this article would be to cover all occupations by the Soviet Union, we should include brief occupations in wars too. I have already added Korea and Bulgaria.
The following occupations in Asia by Soviet Russia in the 1920s are also missing:
*Occupation of Khanate of Khiva: Khorezm People's Soviet Republic
*Occupation of Emirate of Bukhara: Bukharan People's Soviet Republic
*Occupation of Democratic Republic of Armenia: Transcaucasian SFSR
*Occupation of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic: Transcaucasian SFSR
*Occupation of Democratic Republic of Georgia: Transcaucasian SFSR
*Occupation of Northern Iran: Azerbaijan People's Government (result of Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran)
*Occupation of Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus: Soviet Mountain Republic
Other possible occupations, need research.
*Occupation of Ukrainian People's Republic (1920s): Ukrainian SSR
*Occupation of Belarusian National Republic (1920s): Belarusian SSR
*Occupation of Polish territories in Polish-Soviet War
*Occupation of Japanese territories in World War II during Operation August Storm etc., including Japan's puppet states of ROC.
*Occupation of China's Mongolia: Mongolian People's Republic.
*Very brief occupation in Northern Norway after Petsamo-Kirkenes operation: Western Allies demanded Soviet departure.
*Soviet troops in Yugoslavia in World War II against the royalist who were legally in power.
There's still a lot more to write. --Pudeo⺮ 11:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed occupation of Russia --Ioakinf 15:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is commonly accepted that former Soviet republics has been forcefully reoccupied by the Red Army in spite of previous declarations by Lenin about rights of all nations for self-determination. This probaly should be better reflected in article Russian Civil War. However nothing precludes creation of separate articles, such as Occupation of the Northern Caucasus by Red Army and so on.Biophys 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New additions

message: Ok, ok, but this shouldn't be a red link.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nazi occupation]]

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "ultimatum" :
**  "Soviet Ultimata and Replies of the Romanian Government", in Ioan Scurtu, Theodora Stănescu-Stanciu, Georgiana Margareta Scurtu, Istoria Românilor între anii 1918-1940, University of Bucharest, 2002
** Soviet Ultimata and Replies of the Romanian Government in Ioan Scurtu, Theodora Stănescu-Stanciu, Georgiana Margareta Scurtu, Istoria Românilor între anii 1918-1940 (in Romanian), University of Bucharest, 2002
DumZiBoT (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot report : Found duplicate references !