Talk:List of military occupations of Latvia/Archive 1

message: My response to Iļja—  I will be removing your "POV title" flag. "Occupation" is not about your status. For example, I was able to reclaim family propery (land) from before the war, but the dwellings and surrounding area which were at that time "legally" acquired within the context of the Soviet Union were claimed by the inhabitants--with no recourse on my part to change it.
    Polemics aside, the government of Latvia obviously realizes that the influx of Russians as the result of the Soviet occupation is not going disappear--let's be realistic. And a majority of ethnic Russians are now citizens. Perhaps you have an ultra-nationalist Latvian neighbor who despises Russians, if so, for that I am truly sorry. As I have said before, there are Latvians and Russians who make wonderful Latvians, and Latvians and Russians who care nothing about the betterment of Latvia and only care to line their own pockets. And there are those Russians who still believe and live in the propagandist glories of the Soviet past--a situation far from unique to Latvia.
    "Neutral" does not mean because Russia maintains the Soviet Union did not occupy Latvia that the title changes. Since the term "occupation" appears to be an issue again I will be adding a "Basis for Occupation" section. The only thing that is "POV" here is that you are interpreting "occupation" as a personal attack on you.
    Finally, if you are truly concerned about the Soviet occupation, the way to "undo" the occupation is (for Russia) to admit it happened and to move on. Every time Russia denies the Soviet Union occupied Latvia, it revives and perpetuates that occupation. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basis for occupation

message: (detached from the section above)
It would be a lot of work, but I propose expanding the article to encompass the entire occupation period, from 1940 to 1991. Otherwise, subsequent mass deportations, the attempted liberalization of the Latvian S.S.R. (and subsequent purge of its leadership), etc. is not captured. People who managed to survive the first deportations of 1940 did not get to see home for 15 to 20 years. To artificially cut off at the end of World War II doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of historical events. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential expansion 

message: I took a first cut at merging in the Baigais Gads article, I'll be going back and redirecting that article here. The Nazi and second Soviet occupation (for the period through to the end of the war) need to be done. Rather than merciless editing, perhaps we can discuss here first for some consensus. --Pēters 07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have the complete article and it is only partially quoted from and not reproduced in full, which presents a problem insofar as making a copy available on Wikisource. I can of course paraphrase the whole thing but I don't see that adding value. If there's consensus on "Wikisourcing" it nevertheless, I'll do it. Pēters 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least you could do this: select the most important parts of that order and rephrase them. Or you could leave some reaaaaly significant section (like 2-4 sentences). Renata 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As I just mentioned above, occupation involves the invading power substituting itself for the indigenous and previously sovreign authority. Under those terms, and the fact that the Baltic legations continued to function in exile, I believe it's fair and objective to say that the Baltics were occupied for the full term of the Soviet presence. Pēters 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier on this page you mentioned that there might be an article on the Baltic partisans. I began expanding the Forest Brothers article a few weeks ago, but it still has a long way to go... (I know the 'see also' is kind of bloated right now, am actually planning on incorporating almost all of those into the text at some point). heqs 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, do you have a link or source for that NKVD order? It should go in the article and it would be very useful to me. heqs 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been away from Wiki for a bit... in the article you can click on the Order 001223 reference in "Serov's deportation Order № 001223 applied to all the Baltics." which takes you to the Wiki article, where there is a link to the full text in the commons. Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge completed

message: A separate section has been added to substantiate the objective use of the term "occupation" regarding the Soviet presence in the Baltics, with specific detail as regards Latvia. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Occupation" now fully documented 

message: Please do not change pretense to protection. Stalin's "method" was to pursue geopolitical aim "X" while claiming "Y." I agree that Stalin invaded Poland, in part, to protect the U.S.S.R., however, unless you can cite a source which says purely protect, I will revert. My source specifically uses the word "pretense." I'll be glad to go back and annotate when I have some time; everything stated is directly from sources, I have not added my own POV (as in "pretense" versus "protect"). I'll be back to visit in a few days. Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not get your point at all here. Pretence was not changed for protection. Here is my edit. Staling invaded Poland to pursue his geopolitical aim indeed. But he needed a pretence to do that and such was a claim that the reason of the invasion is the need to protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians also noting that Poland, whose territory the invasion violated "ceized to exist" in the wake of German successes and the Polish gov's evacuation. --Irpen 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do note that Poland gov evacuated AFTER the Soviet invasion - it was the Soviet invasion which ensured the Poland ceased to exist, not the other way around.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we're pretty much all on the same page here. My pretence/protection reference was an earlier edit where someone changed it to say that Stalin invaded specifically to protect Poland, changing the meaning from the prior (and which we agree on) Stalin used the pretence (excuse) of protecting Ukranians and Belarussians to invade Poland. (Also, spelling... seized (taken) versus ceased (ended).) My reading of the sequence of events is: (1) Hitler launches Eastern offensive, (2) Stalin pre-emptively invades Poland. Do we have a date (or range of dates) for when the Polish government actually evacuated? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet "pretenses" re: Poland 

message: According to NPOV: 
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.
# If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
# If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.
Majority of Western researchers and public describe the events as Soviet military occupation. So far you have failed to present whatever reliable source claiming the opposite (it would remain minority POV anyway). Your original research over the occupation definitions doesn't prove anything, as authors cited above have already covered the important points. You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. is smth that suggests WP:TE, as well as assigning undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. (i.e Soviet/Russian Fed official statements and arguments; long ago rejected by the West).Constanz - Talk 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with WP policies, thank you. However, a point of view among two (basically Eastern and Western) hardly qualifies as undue weight. In addition, one should beware of grande political statements (both during and after Cold War), for they're definitely not NPOV. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To remind you the Wikipedia policies

message: Proof, that the events are regarded as occupation by third countries, including the overwhelming majority of the West:
*1960 On the twentieth anniversary of the military occupation of the three European states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union 
*1983 Condemning the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral states by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 pursuant to the Molotov / Ribbentrop Pact, and continues 
*2005 On May 21, the United States Senate passed a concurrent resolution, urging, "The government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement, admitting to and condemning the illegal occupation and annexation" until 1991 of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.  
Constanz - Talk 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule of thumb, political sites, are not WP:RS because politics are, well, politics and POV. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meissner was a scientist, not a politician. Unfortunately you haven't provided any other respectable opinions as a counter.Constanz - Talk 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You provided three links to political sites. Neither of them qualify as reliable sources... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you broke all your arguments yourself: the thesis, that the Baltic states were not occupied relies indeed fully on political arguments by USSR/Russia, i.e participant of the conflict. None of your arguments, guys, even if you gave links, hold water, as per your own logic. I've referred to third party opinions as well, plus independent legal analysis (see mr Meissner's book, it's not available online).Constanz - Talk 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And what you fail to understand is that you get a wrong number of POVs. "Occupation" has a special meaning, which is not respected here. Baltic states were all three members of the USSR, were SSRs on their own rights, their representants sieged in the Supreme Soviet, they had the same rights and obligations as Russians, Kazakhs or any other ethnicity in the USSR. For instance, there were Estonian officers and even generals, in the Army. All this hardly qualifies as "occupation". -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally it was qualified as occupation, for the umpteenth time (the sources prove). According to majority POV Baltic states were legally never USSR members. Independent Western countries, majority of the world subscribed to this logic. Only Soviets followed the ludicrous they had the same rights and obligations as Russians, Kazakhs or any other ethnicity in the USSR. idea, which here qualifies as WP:OR. As Estonian-American politologist Rein Taagepera has put it: Estonian SSR had as much legal basis as Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia. You do not have any legal basis for your suggestion, except of course Soviet self-justifications. Constanz - Talk 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If legally means "recognized by a US resolution", than this "law" has no basis outside the US. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for your comparison with Bohemia-Moravia, it is totally false? Did representants from Bohemia and Moravia siege in the Reichstag? No, but Estonian representants did siege in the Supreme Soviet? Did the USSR close Estonian universities as Germans did? No. And so on, so forth. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another blow to your own logic: Nazi-occupied Norway had its own puppet government, did this do away with the occupation? Puppet representatives of Latvian SSR's puppet government didn't help the fact that Latvia was occupied, as admitted by the whole world, except for the Soviets. Regarding your second argument (still WP:OR!), Soviets killed about 30 times more Estonia's inhabitants  than the Nazis did (so exactly the opposite to your assumtion, regarding universities) - according to your view this means that there was no German occupation?Constanz - Talk 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof, that the events are regarded as '''occupation'''

message: Is defined as: "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning"  
Just passing by and realized that I really enjoyed the definition of occupation v Latvia (see above) "The political regime in Latvia was Soviet Republic just like any other one and not that of the Occupied territory. Being part of the country and integrated in it differs much from being run by occupational authority, whose residents are never treated the same way as the citizens of metropolia. "  Of course one wonders how many executions were carried out under that guise. Well one supposes that it is OK since Russians were treated the same horrible way.... (:>) El Jigue 12-9-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth "horrible way" are you talking about? If you're here to push Reaganistic propaganda about the good and the bad, you've came to the wrong place. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But your own Stalinist propaganda is completely suitable here, eh?--Constanz - Talk 08:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the beginning of the 'dispute' you have not succeeded in finding a single argument which would satisfy Wikipedia neutrality rules. You and your comrades have only produced own 'thesis', all arguments actually being derived from the agressor's, i.e Soviet propaganda. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a place to reflect mere Soviet vision of the events. Constanz - Talk 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sophistry

message: Seems that this ongoing POV debate is now obsolete. See:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061123/55932837.html
MOSCOW, November 23 (RIA Novosti) - The Soviet Union was justified in annexing the Baltic states in WWII, as their governments supported Nazi Germany, Russia's foreign intelligence service (SVR) said Thursday. "These materials show that German-oriented policies conducted by governments in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia threatened to turn these states into a staging ground for a German invasion of the Soviet Union," Ivanov said. Ivanov said, "The archives contain special reports to the [Soviet] political leadership on secret talks between Latvian leaders and the Germans, about the inevitability of a future occupation of Estonia by German troops, and the readiness of the Lithuanian army to surrender to the Germans." In June 1940, Russia accused Estonia of forming a conspiracy together with Latvia and Lithuania against it, and issued an ultimatum, demanding among other concessions that more Soviet troops be allowed to enter the three countries. In the following month, local communists loyal to the Soviet Union won parliamentary "elections" in all three countries, and in August these parliaments asked the Soviet government for accession to the Soviet Union. As a result, the three states were formally annexed.
: I would note that all three Baltic states were strictly neutral in the war. The only problem with the Russian position (they "had to protect themselves") is the maps the Soviet Union printed already in 1939 showing the Baltics as "Name-your-Baltic-state S.S.R." And there was the attempted coup in Estonia between the wars, too.
: The whole thing about supporting Nazi Germany is, of course, a total lie. Let's not forget that there were plenty of talks with Hitler on the repatriation of Germans--that being necessary since Hitler didn't want Germans to fall under the Soviet Union as the result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. So...
:# Stalin makes a deal with Hitler
:# Hitler talks with Baltics to repatriate Germans
:# Hitler's talks with Baltics "signal invasion"
:# Stalin takes over Baltics (as originally agreed with Hitler)
: Very neat and tidy indeed. It would appear the Russians are now blaming contacts that are the result of Stalin's deal to take over the Baltics as the reason to take over the Baltics. Talk about your circular reasoning!
:(5 hour daily commute has been keeping me occupied, sorry I've been away...) Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The funny side of 'USSR being threatened by a possible German takeover of Baltics' is that commies had already stationed there troops there in 1939 (that's why from that point on many Western diplomats didn't consider the Baltic states independent any more (were regarded as protectorates). And in Spring-Summer 1940 Germany was busy fighting at the Western front. And that Germany had previously rejected any discussion over German support for Baltics in case of Soviet invasion etc etc. So that it is quite obvious, that this Russian official statement is rubbish. Constanz - Talk 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian SVR confirm occupation of Baltics

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 has been added by me. Constanz - Talk 10:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945]]

message: Could someone add the title to bibliography (bottom of the references section):
Boris Meissner Die Sowjetunion, die baltischen Staaten und das Völkerrecht - Köln: Verl. für Politik u. Wirtschaft, 1956. XI, 377 S.. 
I agree that not everybody can get this book, but it's worth mentioning.
Constanz - Talk 09:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please leave a message on my talk page if this turns out to be controversial. Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editprotected

message: An Arbitration case involving the article has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Evidence.  You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Workshop. Constanz - Talk 11:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia]]

message: Machine translation...
====The Occupation====
In Latvia by many nationalistic politicians adapts the term "occupation", when deals the discussion with a stay of Latvia in the composition OF THE USSR. This term adapts actually as instrument of policy, morally basing, why some inhabitants of the country must have political rights, but others no, and in the radical version - also why noncitizens they are obligated to leave the territory of Latvia.
However, opponents indicate that the term "occupation" has another value. Occupation - this temporary occupation by the armed forces of the territory of enemy, in this case the countries must find in the state of war (independently of that, designed this properly or not). To entire other in the relation time of the presence of Latvia in the composition OF THE USSR the term "occupation" is not applied for the following reasons:
# During the connection of Latvia to THE USSR, the country they not find in the state of war.
# The introduction of Soviet troops was realized at the invitation of the state structures of Latvia, but not as a result of military actions.
# All juridical procedures for the connection of Latvia to THE USSR were formally observed.
# The supporters of occupation frequently use substitution of concepts, referring to Hague convention. Actually, according to this international normative- lawful report, the occupation can be produced, also, without the proper formulation of declaration of war by the protivooborstvuyushchimi sides, and so and without conducting of military actions; however, in this case side, whose territory occupies, it must express to other side its disagreement with the data by actions. What not it was from the side of Latvia in 1940.
# inhabitants of the "occupied" territory obtained the citizenship OF THE USSR, all social, political and economic rights were given on the level with other inhabitants OF THE USSR, in this case the persons reached the specific age could serve in the Soviet Army.
# The borders OF THE USSR after 1940 were acknowledged as many countries of peace.
# In 1991 in Latvia it was accepted declaration about the restoration of independence, but not about the removal of occupational regime. Thus as Latvian public bodies it was acknowledged the fact of aneksii and the entry of Latvia into the composition OF THE USSR.
The assertion is advanced on the basis of these data, that in 1940 in the history occurred the annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union under the pressure BY THE USSR, also, from the taciturn agreement of West European partners.
...end of machine translation
So, here we have the "opposing" viewpoint. The article is tagged as non-compliant, by the way.
# During the connection of Latvia to THE USSR, the country they not find in the state of war. War is not a prerequisite for occupation.
# The introduction of Soviet troops was realized at the invitation of the state structures of Latvia, but not as a result of military actions. False, and Soviet accusations that the Baltics broke their obligations under the terms of the mutual assistance pacts were lies.
# All juridical procedures for the connection of Latvia to THE USSR were formally observed. Perhaps those of the USSR, but the terms of the Latvian constitution were violated, not to mention the petition to join was made by a government fraudulently elected even by the proof of Soviet documents--and results announced in Moscow 12 hours before the polls in Latvia closed.
# The supporters of occupation frequently use substitution of concepts, referring to Hague convention. Actually, according to this international normative- lawful report, the occupation can be produced, also, without the proper formulation of declaration of war by the protivooborstvuyushchimi sides, and so and without conducting of military actions; however, in this case side, whose territory occupies, it must express to other side its disagreement with the data by actions. What not it was from the side of Latvia in 1940. Apparently, since Latvia petitioned to join the Soviet Union instead of complaining--BTW, Stalin ignored pleas sent from Latvia by the occupied government subsequently disbanded--this means it's not an occupation but an invitation. It is, in fact, the disputers of occupation that quote the Hague convention as indicating no occupation, their argument being that since Latvia was under civilian authority following the war, it could not be occupied. (Occupation occurs when the governing sovereign de jure authority is prevented from functioning. Whether the invading authority substituted/replaced is military or civilian has no bearing.)
# Inhabitants of the "occupied" territory obtained the citizenship OF THE USSR, all social, political and economic rights were given on the level with other inhabitants OF THE USSR, in this case the persons reached the specific age could serve in the Soviet Army. According to Soviet law, I, as a descendent of someone from a territory under Soviet jurisdiction, was also a Soviet citizen for the duration of the occupation. The Soviets illegally conscripted Latvians during the war and after the war. Doing something illegal does not make it legal. And, speaking of citizenship, Latvia continued to issue passports to its citizens decades after WWII ended, which were internationally recognized as valid. (Yes, I have that in a published reputable source.)
# The borders OF THE USSR after 1940 were acknowledged as many countries of peace. The observation of borders is not related to de jure recognition of authority within those borders.
# In 1991 in Latvia it was accepted declaration about the restoration of independence, but not about the removal of occupational regime. Thus as Latvian public bodies it was acknowledged the fact of annexation and the entry of Latvia into the composition OF THE USSR. It is precisely the restoration of independence and the de jure continuity of the Latvian Republic with the first republic that makes it an occupation for the entire term of the Soviet presence. Restoration of independence does not confer recognition of annexation as valid.
So, some facts which are true (Latvians served in the Soviet military and had Soviet citizenship). Peace-time observation of borders. Plus a mix of outright lies (the Soviets were invited in). And then the leap that these facts prove "no occupation."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian Wikipedia article on Latvia

message: In Latvia by many nationalistic politicians adapts the term "occupation", when deals the discussion with a stay of Latvia in the composition OF THE USSR. This term adapts actually as instrument of policy, morally basing, why some inhabitants of the country must have political rights, but others no, and in the radical version - also why noncitizens they are obligated to leave the territory of Latvia.
However, opponents indicate that the term "occupation" has another value. Occupation - this temporary occupation by the armed forces of the territory of enemy, in this case the countries must find in the state of war (independently of that, designed this properly or not). To entire other in the relation time of the presence of Latvia in the composition OF THE USSR the term "occupation" is not applied for the following reasons:
# During the connection of Latvia to THE USSR, the country they not find in the state of war.
# The introduction of Soviet troops was realized at the invitation of the state structures of Latvia, but not as a result of military actions.
# All juridical procedures for the connection of Latvia to THE USSR were formally observed.
# The supporters of occupation frequently use substitution of concepts, referring to Hague convention. Actually, according to this international normative- lawful report, the occupation can be produced, also, without the proper formulation of declaration of war by the protivooborstvuyushchimi sides, and so and without conducting of military actions; however, in this case side, whose territory occupies, it must express to other side its disagreement with the data by actions. What not it was from the side of Latvia in 1940.
# inhabitants of the "occupied" territory obtained the citizenship OF THE USSR, all social, political and economic rights were given on the level with other inhabitants OF THE USSR, in this case the persons reached the specific age could serve in the Soviet Army.
# The borders OF THE USSR after 1940 were acknowledged as many countries of peace.
# In 1991 in Latvia it was accepted declaration about the restoration of independence, but not about the removal of occupational regime. Thus as Latvian public bodies it was acknowledged the fact of aneksii and the entry of Latvia into the composition OF THE USSR.
The assertion is advanced on the basis of these data, that in 1940 in the history occurred the annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union under the pressure BY THE USSR, also, from the taciturn agreement of West European partners.
</blockquote>
...end of machine translation
So, here we have the "opposing" viewpoint. The article is tagged as non-compliant, by the way.
# During the connection of Latvia to THE USSR, the country they not find in the state of war. War is not a prerequisite for occupation.
# The introduction of Soviet troops was realized at the invitation of the state structures of Latvia, but not as a result of military actions. False, and Soviet accusations that the Baltics broke their obligations under the terms of the mutual assistance pacts were lies.
# All juridical procedures for the connection of Latvia to THE USSR were formally observed. Perhaps those of the USSR, but the terms of the Latvian constitution were violated, not to mention the petition to join was made by a government fraudulently elected even by the proof of Soviet documents--and results announced in Moscow 12 hours before the polls in Latvia closed.
# The supporters of occupation frequently use substitution of concepts, referring to Hague convention. Actually, according to this international normative- lawful report, the occupation can be produced, also, without the proper formulation of declaration of war by the protivooborstvuyushchimi sides, and so and without conducting of military actions; however, in this case side, whose territory occupies, it must express to other side its disagreement with the data by actions. What not it was from the side of Latvia in 1940. Apparently, since Latvia petitioned to join the Soviet Union instead of complaining--BTW, Stalin ignored pleas sent from Latvia by the occupied government subsequently disbanded--this means it's not an occupation but an invitation. It is, in fact, the disputers of occupation that quote the Hague convention as indicating no occupation, their argument being that since Latvia was under civilian authority following the war, it could not be occupied. (Occupation occurs when the governing sovereign de jure authority is prevented from functioning. Whether the invading authority substituted/replaced is military or civilian has no bearing.)
# Inhabitants of the "occupied" territory obtained the citizenship OF THE USSR, all social, political and economic rights were given on the level with other inhabitants OF THE USSR, in this case the persons reached the specific age could serve in the Soviet Army. According to Soviet law, I, as a descendent of someone from a territory under Soviet jurisdiction, was also a Soviet citizen for the duration of the occupation. The Soviets illegally conscripted Latvians during the war and after the war. Doing something illegal does not make it legal. And, speaking of citizenship, Latvia continued to issue passports to its citizens decades after WWII ended, which were internationally recognized as valid. (Yes, I have that in a published reputable source.)
# The borders OF THE USSR after 1940 were acknowledged as many countries of peace. The observation of borders is not related to de jure recognition of authority within those borders.
# In 1991 in Latvia it was accepted declaration about the restoration of independence, but not about the removal of occupational regime. Thus as Latvian public bodies it was acknowledged the fact of annexation and the entry of Latvia into the composition OF THE USSR. It is precisely the restoration of independence and the de jure continuity of the Latvian Republic with the first republic that makes it an occupation for the entire term of the Soviet presence. Restoration of independence does not confer recognition of annexation as valid.
So, some facts which are true (Latvians served in the Soviet military and had Soviet citizenship). Peace-time observation of borders. Plus a mix of outright lies (the Soviets were invited in). And then the leap that these facts prove "no occupation."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Occupation

message: It strikes me as curious that the first five years of the Occupation of Latvia are segregated from the next 45. While I will not attempt to expand the article to include the post-1945 occupation, the reader should certainly be given a clear indication this article only covers a small, if important and unique, part of the occupation years."
(...) Everyking 04:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 years? 

message: Added historical Latvian and Russian views of the Baltics as a area finding itself at the center of geopolitical struggles and intrigue. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural and historical context

message: First of all the Finns did not refuse negotiation before the winterwar, and the Finns was willing to comprimise in all but one point, to give away Hanko as a Soviet navelbase. The Soviets was not willing to compromisie in the talks.
Second. Its a false statment saying that giving away karelia to the Soviet gave security as Soviet presure towards Finland never been worse than during the interim peace period of  1940-1941.
*Soviet shotdown onf Finnish passenger airline plane.
*Molotov asked Hitler in Berlin if the Soviet could start a new war.
*Soviet subversive action and spying in Finland was massive.--Posse72 23:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland and the winter war in this text. 

message: It may be of interest that the relevant Estonian publications termed the first year of Bolshevik Terror as Year of Troubles () and Year of Red Plague ().  The latter fits well together with the name for the following German occupation: Years of Brown Plague ().  Obviously, the obvious names were also used. Digwuren 11:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the First Year of Terror 

message: ...and get it released from probation. I suggest removing any questionable and sloppy entries by the people that have posted those first. Like for example: Finland refused...just needs clarifying. Finland refused the terms proposed by the USSR. etc.  Also I think the whole thing  could be much more clear and organized better. For starters I think the opening is very messy...in general I think this thing is all over the place, you guys have made it very easy to attack it! How about starting all over? Organizing everything according to the chronology etc.? Now everything is messed up and feels more like someones notes about events rather than a serious page from an encyclopedia. So how about staring all over by keeping it clean and tight? Sometimes less is more  you know and that feels what's needed the most over here. The main thing is to get it released from probation after all...--Termer 04:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK guys, lets clean this thing up! 

message: Please note that posting additional POV  tags to this article is going to be considered as a promotion of a political agenda of the current Russian government or/and former Soviet Union, the primary 2 sources in the World that deny the fact of the occupation. The facts of this article are in compliance with encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-37263/Baltic-states, World Book Encyclopedia etc. Therefore there are no basis whatsoever for anybody to POV tag this article based on personal political agendas. Thanks--Termer 15:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please scroll up and notice this article is on probation, meaning it is highly advisable to not engage in such serious edits before being sure of reaching a certain form of consensus. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The POV-title tag reflects the opinion of some editors and has nothing to do with the foreign policy of the Russian Federation. The POV tag was part of the article when it became protected at January 27th and was still there when it came under probation. The edit war started by some editors to remove this tag is disruptive and in my opinion a violation of the ruling of the arbitration committee in this case. Otto 18:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tags/POV/edit war during probation 

message: Since there are conflicts between Russian sources and the former Soviet Sources + the political opinions of the Russian government, therefor general "Russian Sources" in the article can't be further used for supporting the political viewpoints of the current Russian government.
There is a Russian source that confirms military blockade prior to actual ultimatum, invasion and occupation of baltic countries. According to the director of the Russian State Archive of the Naval Department Pavel Petrov (C.Phil.) according to the records in the archive the order for total military blockade of Estonia to the Soviet Baltic Fleet was given on June 12, 1940. Pavel Petrov] at Finnish Defence Forces home page documents published from the State Archive of the Russian Navy  Thats 4 days before the actual ultimatum and the Soviet invasion on June 16.
Also, Russian scholars have published their works on Soviet Occupation in Baltic countries. For example Dmitrii Smirnov: Sovietization, Terror and Repression in the Baltic States in the 1940s and 1950s: The Perspective of contemporary Russian Society. The Sovietization of the Baltic States, 1940-1956 ISBN-13 9789985930410. etc
Therefore, splitting up the article according to Russian/Soviet sources is not accurate according to the facts. The only minority viewpoint that is relevant really would be the position of the current Russian government. And a brief historic Soviet take on things would be also interesting to keep here for ref I think. So, I'm going to format the article accordingly ASAP. Any suggestions welcome meanwhile--Termer 05:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian Sources

message: Its time to move forward with getting this article back on track--Termer 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: peer review

message: *I support the renaming in connection with the removal of the tag--Termer 03:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Latvia in World War II