Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 2

Tagging

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Tag misuse is disruptive, Dojarca, who was instrumental in applying {{POV}} to this article, makes an interesting case that a casual Wikipedia user should be able to see objections to an article. I do not yet know my final position on this issue, but this article seems like a nice test case. Accordingly, I've replaced the problematic {{POV}} tag with a factually accurate {{I dislike this}} tag, with reference to Dojarca. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the reasons for tagging: http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Occupation_of_Baltic_states#Occupation_of_Baltic_states . They also presented in the archive. As the issue has not be resolved since, the reasons are still valid.--Dojarca 09:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented on syllogistic history elsewhere. Editors insist on pushing the Russian position as equally valid (though 100% devoid of any sources whatsoever), or that absence of the word occupation somewhere denotes absence of occupation, or that occupation is just such a terribly "judgemental" term. Apparently we don't want to offend the very dead Soviet bear.

    Occupation is a proven fact, voluminously sourced, and contradicted by no source that has ever been produced by any editor. Again, the Russian Duma proclaimed Latvia joined the USSR legally, ergo--for that reason, and that reason alone--no occupation. Sources, please. If there is no reputable source produced backing the Russian position (detailing the particulars of how the Soviet annexation of Latvia was legal) within 30 days, I am untagging the article indicating your contention of "POV" is unsubstantiated WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tell you what, I'll leave your tagging untouched until November 1st (2007)--though I can only speak for myself, obviously. Good hunting for sources. As industrious as you and the other "disputing" editors have been, with all the time you've been able to apply here to protecting the very dead Soviet Union's honor, I do not expect this to be a challenge for you.

    While I must admit to admiring Anonimu's creativity in contending everyone knowing there are no sources because no one bothers to write about what is true, only liars need to write fiction about history (paraphrase, originally re: Romania), I expect a real source. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Application notes

If this becomes an accepted practice, some sort of bannershell will need to be developed to facilitate larger numbers of dislike tags. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fresh perspectives, not involved prior, new sources

No one has, as yet, found sources for Russia's contention of non-occupation of the Baltics by the Soviet Union. As an editor who believes the Baltics were occupied, even I have, nevertheless, sought reputable sources on Soviet historiography which lay out a factual basis for the Duma's proclamation that Latvia (and rest of Baltics) joined the USSR legally according to international law, simply to better understand history. To date, however, no reputable sources have appeared.
   Casual readers may not bother to look at talk pages, I am hoping we can stimulate new outside interest. I believe that as editors striving to practice "good faith", we would all prefer not to simply replay the last debate, now thankfully and mercifully archived. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that the search for a source on the Russian position is not simply about "occupation" or "non-occupation." If the Baltics joined the USSR legally according to international law (so, by their own laws/constitutions, by Soviet laws/constitution, by international laws and prior treaty obligations), then that supports the position that the current Baltic republics are not continuous with the first republics. All three republics, however, contend that they are continuous with their first incarnation. This question of continuity has far wider and greater implications than simply the question of occupation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think any state can proclaim its continuity with some state in the past if it wants.--Dojarca 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All three Baltic states point to specific actions and events as preserving continuity of their sovereignty regardless of events on their soil. It's not just a matter of declaration, there are legal ramifications (outside "occupation") stemming from whether the states are continuous or not. For example, I believe a Latvian is currently suing Russia for the Soviets deporting his family. No continuity/continuity determines whether that deportation was strictly a domestic matter or an act of aggression by one sovereign state against citizens of another sovereign state, respectively. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There are still Russian imperial family members still "preserving continuity" and Russia can declare its continuity with Russian Empire in some point in future depending on political situation.--Dojarca 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That is quite true, but it has nothing to do with international law and sovereign rights. Continuity is a legal issue, royalty is hereditary and, as to any exercise of authority or national representation, purely political. Comparing the two is WP:SYNTH. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Importantly, there's an international consensus regarding the continuity of Baltic states being valid. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Source?--Dojarca 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article cites: Van Elsuwege, P. (2003). "State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States". Leiden Journal of International Law 16: 377-388.

    In all sincerity, have you read any of the sources cited in the article? We're not going to move beyond tagging unless we:

• read sources already cited;
• read new sources;
• determine if they are reputable (what they contend is based on independently verifiable facts presented in other reputable sources);
• once cited, affirm that their editorial representation in the article is factual and maintains the original sense of the source.

    As diplomatic verifiers of continuity, there are numerous pre-WWII treaty-governed relationships which were resumed after Baltic independence--that is, treaty in force from before WWII, no official act by either party to pass/ratify a new agreement, parties simply began observing again in terms of rights and obligations. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no free copy from that source in the net, can you provide a quote from that source that supports the statement?--Dojarca 15:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, Dojarca, since you asked for a source, you will indulge my asking if someone could finally produce a reputable source explaining the factual basis for Russia's official parliamentary declaration that Latvia (and by extension the Baltics) joined the USSR legally according to international law. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Russia can declare its continuity with Russian Empire in some point in future depending on political situation. Please note Dojarca that WP is for sharing knowledge, not fantasies. And why exactly has this article been tagged again? Is it yet another fantasy that the countries were not victims of the Soviet imperialism? The article has all possible POV-s present therefor the tag should be removed ASAP. Thanks!--Termer 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I still wait for the citation from the source regarding international consensus.--Dojarca 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Must be because you promptly ignored all the sources presented, including those mentioned in the arbcom and mediation you participated in. But because the sources are so easy to find, I'll amuse you one more time. The book Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR (ISBN 9041121773) should be a great read. On its 382 pages, it describes and analyses the issues of international law -- including the international recognition -- in depth. Oh, and before you complain -- Mälksoo is a recognised scholar of international law. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give us first the exact citation from this source supporting "international consensus".--Dojarca 05:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, you are starting to become very tedious with your constant demands for citations. Just because you do not have access to a free online version of something, does not invalidate it for the purposes of Wikipedia. If you really cared about the subject, and wanted to know the other side of the issue, you could go to a library and order a book or article, by Inter-library loan if need be. Anyhow, since you insist on being stubborn, here's a direct quote from Peter van Elsuwege's article in the Leiden Journal of International Law (ISSN 0922-1565; according to OCLC WorldCat, it is available at over a hundred research libraries worldwide, plus many more with online subscriptions):

The answer relies on the legal analysis of the prewar incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. According to the generally accepted view this was an illegal act, both under customary and conventional international law.⁵¹ (p. 387)

Illegality of annexation does not mean legal continuity, dont you agree? Otherwise Russia should be considered a legal successor of the Russian Empire as the October Revolution (and February revolution) were illegal. Estonian war for independence was also illegal according the imperial law. And I found no about international consensus. He may refer to his country's society or american society. This is obviously not correct for Russia for example.--Dojarca 10:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you protest further, footnote 51 refers to K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (2nd ed., 1968; OCLC 465725), p. 390. While one might be able to dismiss Mälksoo as part of some Baltic apologist cabal that is distorting the sacred precepts of international law, note that Peter van Elsuwege is a researcher on EU-Russian relations [1] and Russian minority issues in the Baltics.[2] — Zalktis 10:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give a citation?--Dojarca 10:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And, Dojaraca, can you cite "This is obviously not correct for Russia for example." Not quoting politicians, military, et al. but a reputable source which discusses how it is obvious based on verifiable facts that the Baltic republics are not continuous/were not occupied/were legally annexed/...? You insist on reverting the argument over that Soviet presence to:

• all reputable sources (not just Baltic political pronouncements and Baltic scholarship) indicate "illegal" = this would be consensus where writing an encyclopedia article is concerned
• all (current) official Russian political pronouncements indicate "legal"--the Russian-Lithuanian peace treaty mentions the annexation, but I don't have the text, perhaps someone can look up the 1st preamble?
• no reputable source indicate "legal"

ERGO (according to you and a very small cadre of other Wikipedia editors) the question of illegality vs. legality is an issue of POV. It is not.

To appropriately reflect the official Russian POV:

1. article represents Soviet actions according to reputable sources = illegal
2. "Official representations by governments"

1. Russia officially disagrees
2. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania agree (perhaps obvious, but note separately)
3. Others

I believe the article does so already, making it NPOV. To your latest requests on continuity, I suppose we could start "Continuity of Baltic states" as a separate focus.

Unless we want to recreate the article talk just archived, I am content to wait for Dojarca (and other) editors to bring a source--not their personal contentions--to the table to have something new to discuss. We've already proven that attempting to counter personal contentions with reputable sources does not make for effective editorial discussion. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that well known fiction writer from Wikipedia already made this article or atleast aimed at doing that. Suva Чего? 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I ask at last: is there any source for international consensus?--Dojarca 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof at last!

Since nobody else is even bothering to try to come with counter-sources that demonstrate the legality of the Soviet takeover of the Baltic states and/or the disrupted continuity of these states, in the name of WP:NPOV I'll have to give it a go. I've dug up a little morsel from The American Journal of International Law, vol. 48, no. 1 (Jan. 1954), p. 163.

It's a divorce case (Pulenciks v Augustovskis) in a Belgian Civil Tribunal from 1951. The judgement contains the assertions that, despite differing viewpoints about the use of force and the illegality of annexation and occupation, Latvia had ceased to exist, i.e. that "there was at present no state of Latvia or Latvian nationality". This court of first instance thus decided that Latvians were to be considered de facto and de jure Soviet nationals. Of course, numerous other rulings reported in the same journal from various American and European jurisdictions over the years run counter to this isolated Belgian interpretation, including a contemporaneous French ruling cited in a footnote to the case notice given here.

Do I get the prize, Pēters? Or is my source invalid, 'cause it's on JSTOR, and Dojarca probably can't access it...? — Zalktis 15:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit obscure but at least it's the first thing we've had to discuss. Did the ruling specifically use either the terms de facto or de jure, or simply state that, practically speaking, there was no state/nationality of Latvia? Certainly a place to start compiling some references.

    Still not examining legality/illegality (so Dojarca et al. are not off the hook) but it's more than has been produced since this "debate" started (which would be nothing). Academic articles archived on JSTOR are fine (as far as I'm concerned).

    I'll give due consideration to an appropriate prize. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with syllogistic history (in this case, substance by association as it has something to do with Belgians), I will also mention that as far as I'm aware, Belgium is also the only place where Latvian POWs were beaten and used for target practice. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This summary of the court ruling doesn't explicitly use the terms de facto or de jure, but it does include the following: ... the court found that "annexation and incorporation result in change of nationality," so that the parties became Soviet nationals. To my (admittedly, non-lawyer) mind, this means pretty much the same thing.

As for an appropriate prize, maybe you could award me a Kangars Barnstar – for services rendered in treacherously betraying one's compatriots to foreign invaders? I'm not choosy, though. Being a reptile, anything bright and shiny that I can horde will do! — Zalktis 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lāčplēsis... mm, haven't read that for 15 years at least, should re-read it. -- Sander Säde 07:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kangara kalnos drūmīgi šņāca lielajie meži,

Dziļajie purvji izsvīda miglu kalnāju starpās;

Mežos plosījās plēsīgi zvēri, nāvīgas čūskas

Lodāja purvjos, un bailīgi ūpji kauca pa naktīm. —

In the hills of Kangars wailed the great gloom-filled forests,

The abyssal swamps' sweated fog rising 'tween the hills;

Predators ran rampant through the woods, deadly snakes

Slithered in the swamps, and the eagle-owls howled fearfully through the night.

 —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems (Zalktis) a reasonable request! Well, the ruling conveniently sidesteps the issue, it's a "for the purposes of the court's ruling, the court views the individual as being a Soviet citizen" ruling. The phrases de facto and de jure are absent for a reason--neither can or should be inferred.

   Since my parents were in Latvia when it was annexed, I too was a Soviet citizen. Perhaps I'll mention that in your award. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another source

Here is another brick in the wall: The Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe in the Light of International Law, by Jerzy August Bolesław Gawenda, published 1974, Foreign Affairs Publishing Co. [3] p135: "Since the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States is thus regarded as legally void, they must be regarded as being under Soviet occupation pure and simple" Martintg 03:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tag

I've removed the tag that Dojarca has put here as a part of his campaign to falsify history. The occupation of the Baltic states is not disputed, it is an accepted fact that can be found in any encyclopedia, not to mention any reference work on WWII. I suggest users to read the position taken by Encyclopedia Britannica on the matter. Yes, there are some people who deny that the occupation took place, but that doesn't change the fact one bit. There are people who deny the Holocaust, people who deny that the world isn't flat, people who deny that the earth moves around the sun, etc. If someone think they can add POV-tags to any article they happen to disagree with, they are mistaken. If an article is properly sourced, as this one is, and the claims in it are in line with the views taken by experts on that matter, then the article is not POV although its content may be displeasing some users. JdeJ 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this will keep the tag away. What you naively fail to see is that all English-language encyclopaedias, mass media, so-called "scholarly" publications, etc. are inherently biased, and therefore quoting them is likely to be viewed by neutral, unbiased editors (whose objectivity surpasses that of us mere mortals) as tantamount to POV-pushing. The only thing more biased than an English-language source is one in Polish, Latvian, or Estonian — none of these should ever be considered reputable. The tag will be back in a flash ... just wait and see! — Zalktis 09:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's only a matter of time now that someone devoid of good will posts a diff somewhere affirming that "Even Zalktis denounces all English-language sources as biased." ... just wait and see! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That would only demonstrate that such persons do not understand that, as a snake, I inevitably speak with a forked tongue. — Zalktis 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Again. Occupation is possible only of foreign territory. Saying the Baltics were occupied until 1991 is contrary to the definition. Why Western sources should be regarded as more reputale than Soviet ones?--Dojarca 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• No one has posted any specific Soviet sources. I will remove the tag until you post some references to these Soviet sources you think exist. Then we can make progress. Martintg 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The source is the constitution in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia whach states the Baltic states are the parts of the USSR.--Dojarca 09:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why Western sources should be regarded as more reputale than Soviet ones? Thank you for the question Dojarca. As far as I'm concerned, Soviet sources can't be considered as encyclopedic sources at all simply because it was an authoritarian and totalitarian regime. Although I think it's just interesting to include these as an example of manipulated historic POV.--Termer 02:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  This is simply your POV that it was totalitarian. Anyway the Soviet authors still alive and the point of view should be attriobuted to the researcer personally.--Dojarca 09:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, you are proving my ironic comments above to be correct. If I understand you correctly, Soviet sources are to be treated as reliable, because in the scholarly writing about history, politics, international relations, etc., the CPSU never exerted any political pressure or censorship on the scholars in question. Soviet scholarship was a bastion of academic freedom. (This of course, runs completely counter to the what is said by the scholars I have met who worked in the Latvian SSR, who often no longer stand by what they were allowed to publish back then, and also to the documentation of the CP's meddling in academic publishing that I have seen; however, these sources could be just lies and fabrications intended as part of a malicious, cowardly post-factum smear campaign against the USSR.) On the other hand, "Western" (i.e., English language sources, which are supposed to be the mainstay for English Wikipedia) allegedly were and are still completely tainted by the overwhelming bias of Cold War anti-Soviet propaganda. They are therefore not reliable, as when the WSJ reports on a position attributed the the Russian government, such as that "Russia is a great power that shouldn't be ashamed of its past".[4] This, then, justifies their immediate deletion from an article.

Instead of just deleting the lies of others, why don't you actually improve Wikipedia and reduce its inherent structural bias by beefing up the article with all the Soviet sources that poke holes in the calumnies of the obfuscators? — Zalktis 10:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The solution is simple: all sources if they are in controvercy should be attributed "Soviet scholar N noted", "Western historian X calculated" etc. No sources should be deleted.--Dojarca 00:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No Dojarca, that's a fact that the USSR was a totalitarian state.--Termer 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly so, in fact it is widely disputed by political scientists whether USSR ceased to be totalitarian already after Stalin's death or with the beginning of Perestroika: Totalitarian#Criticism_and_recent_work_with_the_concept -- Borism 20:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the very term "totalitarism" was invented by liberal ideologists with only one purpose: to equate Soviet regime and Nazi Germany under one umbrella.--Dojarca 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Dojarca. The terms "totalitarian" and "totalitarianism" were first coined in the 1920s to describe the ambitions of the regime in Fascist Italy. The Italian Fascists actually used these words to describe themselves, as they saw "totalitarian" as something positive. It was the Italian anti-Fascists of the Left who first gave "totalitarian" negative connotations. The use of totalitarian theory to compare Nazism and Soviet Communism only developed later, starting in the late 1930s. My source for this chronology? Oxford English Distionary, citing Sturzo's Italy & Fascismo (English translation, 1926), amongst others. — Zalktis 09:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

the opinion can by accepted as a POV at best I guess, although not that serious one. After all, even the regime in Nazi Germany was based on popular support. Hitler came to power via free elections after all unlike the communists in the USSR. And the popular support in Germany didn't change the fact that it was a totalitarian regime exactly like any popular support to the communists doesn't change the facts regarding the USSR--Termer 20:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler did not come to power by elections. He was appointed by only one man: reichspresident Gindenburg. And Bolsheviks came to power winning election into II All-Russian Congress of Soviets.--Dojarca 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand your opinion. Question whether regime is totalitarian or not is not for us or popular support to decide, it is a research subject of political scientists, they come with a definition, they put a label. Same goes with occupation - historians decide that. Except that it takes much longer time (if at all) to reach consensus between historians. Maybe several centuries from now they'll reach consensus on that, and indeed that occupation took place, but surely it was unconventional occupation (no resistance, no bloodshed)! So long, happy arguing... -- Borism 20:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[to Borism] Again, as many times before, bloodshed, declaration of war, et al. are not required for occupation. It's cut and dried. The Russian Duma says Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally under international law--which means Latvia could not be occupied. We have yet to see the evidence, only empty contentions like "unconventional" or "those who wrote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia are still alive." All Wikipedia editor speculation. Let's see a source. There's no opinion or popularity contest involved. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was never talking about my opinion, I was referring to the few political scientists that base their opinion on the popular support the regime had.--Termer 21:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to Borism :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion suggestion

Perhaps adding a section on the policy of Sweden towards the Baltic occupations would be an interesting addition to the article, and give a more nuanced picture of the international debates on recognition/non-recognition of the occupation.

For instance, in 1940 the Swedish government recognised the annexation of the Baltic states to by the USSR. Thus, the postwar Baltic refugees in Sweden were appalled to find themselves registered as being Soviet citizens. Sweden also extradited around 140 former Baltic military (mainly Waffen-SS) internees — along with about 3000 interned German soldiers, I might add — to the USSR in 1946. The trades unions in Sweden, knowing that Balts were generally suspicious of the left, were prone to referring to the Baltic refugees as "baltfascister" (Baltic fascists), and called for them to be shipped off back where they came from. On the other hand, the Swedish intelligence services collaborated with the US and UK in exploiting the Baltic guerrilla resistance movements for information gathering about the USSR in the immediate postwar years. The Swedish security services were more concerned with Soviet sedition, thus even those Balts with murky pasts from WWII could find safe refuge there in actual fact — their anti-Communist credentials were sound (similarly, numerous Norwegians and Danes persecuted in their homelands as collaborators found a safe haven in Sweden after the war for similar reasons).

(The Swedish dealings with Nazi-occupied Ostland — such as continued interest in "repatriating" Estonian Swedes — are another chapter altogether ...)

Yet, when it came to the 1980s, the fact that Sweden had officially recognised the occupation and annexation came as a kind of benefit. The Swedes were able to open consular representations in the Baltic SSRs during the Third Awakening, and provided valuable technical and moral support to the pro-independence Popular Front Movements. When independence from the USSR was finally fully realised in 1991, Sweden reneged on its 1940 stance, and formally recognised that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were legally continuous with the states illegally occupied by the USSR in 1940. Perfidious Swedes!

Given a bit of time, I could assemble some good sources on this historical case. Sadly for Dojarca, much of the sources will be in Swedish — yet I'm sure that Petri Krohn and other Wikipedians conversant in Swedish will be able to rise to the occasion and ensure that NPOV standards are upheld. — Zalktis 07:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Sweden's policies regarding the subject can make up it's own article. There was much more to that than you Zalktis have pointed out. For example the people from the Baltic states that became Swedish citizens during the Cold war were told directly that the Swedish government can't be responsible for them in case they choose to travel to any Soviet controlled country. Also, Swedish army used the people across the Baltic sea who had became Swedish citizens by making it clear that in case there was a war with the Soviet Union, the USSR would still look at them as Soviet citizens fighting against the USSR, not as Swedish. At the same time I have no idea if any published research as been done about the subject...--Termer 13:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Petri Krohn's view - that Estonians, who went to Sweden, were all Nazi concentration camp guards and carried pocketfuls of gold teeth... -- Sander Säde 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why exactly was this worth mentioning unless someone called Petri Krohn can be considered a WP:RS.--Termer 16:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That was supposed to be a joke, showing how far some editors can go in flawed beliefs. -- Sander Säde 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

About: "Also, Swedish army used the people across the Baltic sea who had became Swedish citizens by making it clear that in case there was a war with the Soviet Union, the USSR would still look at them as Soviet citizens fighting against the USSR, not as Swedish." I'm not sure it's totally clear this has nothing to do with Sweden versus the USSR. Soviet policy was that everyone who was a Baltic citizen at the time of annexation was henceforth a Soviet citizen etc. etc. So, from then on, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians fighting against the USSR would simply be shot as traitors. Just the act of leaving the Soviet Union without the approval of authorities made you a traitor. Again, just visit the USSR and risk being simply shot. By Soviet "law" I myself, born of traitorous Soviet citizen parents, but Soviet nevertheless, am a (now former) Soviet citizen as I understand it. Yours, камрад Товарищ Vecrumba 04:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba

Comrade Vecrumba! Please note that if your truly consider yourself an ex-Soviet, you should sign off as товарищ (tovarishch), which is the proper word in the language of the Vanguard of the Proletariat. The term you used is suspiciously reminiscent of Kamerad, a word from the language of the fascist occupiers. Does this mental slip reveal your true political sympathies? Or does it simply reflect the fact that your language skills have irreparably degenerated after decades of living amongst hostile capitalists in a so-called "democracy"? Either way, you should report immediately to the Special Officer in the Personnel Section for purging! — Zalktis 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had signed properly, which I remembered from my high school days, but when I went to do an automated translate to double check, I wasn't getting the right hit and thought I had misremembered. So, sincere thanks for confirmation that, at least in this instance, I should have followed my instincts. :-) Yours, Товарищ Вецрумба  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering why Vecrumba didn't chime it with regards to Termer's statement that Swedish refusal to protect naturalized citizens if they go to their former countries is something worth wasting WP space on. Vecrumba can't be unaware that such a policy is used by most countries (USA included) in dealings between it's naturalized citizens and their former countries, so there's nothing in Swedish policy that merits separate mention (as well as Sweden's use of former Nazi collaborators as valuable allies in the Cold War, it was such a common practice). RJ CG (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm don't believe you're making the proper distinction here.

   My mother, as a naturalized U.S. citizen, was formerly a citizen of Latvia. The U.S. would not regard her as a citizen of the U.S.S.R. had she visited her family once she had (through sheer dogged persistence for nearly two decades) reestablished contact with them upon their return to Latvia after surviving Siberia--and been detained. She could appeal to the U.S. embassy for intervention.

   On the other hand, Sweden, as the only country granting de jure recognition of the Soviet presence in Latvia at the time of occupation (besides Hitler), would also recognize the U.S.S.R. claim that, had my mother been a naturalized Swedish citizen similarly detained, as a (recognized by Sweden) U.S.S.R. citizen prior, she would be abandoned to the Soviets. She would have no recourse to appeal to the Swedish embassy for intervention.

   Therefore the Swedish example does merit specific mention, as it is an anomaly with regard to how other countries dealt with the Soviet definition of citizenship regarding the Baltic territories it occupied.

   Your generalization of policy regarding naturalized citizens does not apply as you imply it does. So, RJ CG, it's Wiki-space well spent. —PētersV (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel for your mother, who had to spend 50+ years of her life in the most prosperous country on Earth during the longest period of prosperity this country had ever seen, as well as for her relatives, who survived whatever hardships life threw on them. Wish I could say the same (they survived) about my relatives, executed by Germans and their Latvian collaborators (this isn't a figure of speech, we investigated the matter privately in late 1970s, when there were still a lot of live witnesses, all of them referred to "Latysh batallion") in Belarus. RJ CG 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some Holocaust research (the history of Jews in Latvia article needs some updating) so I can clarify which are the collaborators, that is, the SD units--not Waffen SS--formed immediately following Nazi occupation and which aren't--that is those who were conscripted/"volunteered" for the Waffen-SS to fight against the Red Army in 1943, after the Holocaust. I would be interested in any further detail you could provide, mainly timeframe and any further detail on where in Belarus to see what I can track down. You can respond on my talk page or send me Email.

   Just as an FYI, when food ran short while my parents were still in the DP camps, they were advised to eat grass. They arrived with nothing but the clothes on their backs and one small wooden suitcase with a few personal effects. In Latvia they had been professionals; their first professions in their "prosperous" new home were house-cleaning maid and hospital orderly.

   My sincerest sympathies for your family and relatives. My wife's family lost their closest friend in Latvia (who was Jewish) to the Nazis--my father-in-law, then a teen, was sent to warn her when word started to spread, picked his way across fields strewn with bodies only to arrive at her house and find her beheaded. No one denies the Holocaust or that it had its collaborators, or that it was horrific.

   I trust your feeling for my mother was not sarcasm. That would be unfortunate. —PētersV 00:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Not all made it back from Siberia. A bit rough, having no winter clothes, being whipped until your shoes ran full of your own blood and all. And that was just how they treated the women. My uncles were taken away separately and never heard from again. I shouldn't have implied they all survived. —PētersV 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

On the overall topic (Sweden with regard to the Baltics), there are these tidbits from the Latvian foreign ministry site:

1940

• According to a decision made by the high council of the Soviet Union on the 6th of August, all Latvian embassies and consulates should cease their activities. The Latvian envoy considered the Soviet government in Latvia illegal and refused to turn over the embassy to the Soviet Union.
• On the 19th of August the embassy is turned over to the Soviet Union through mediation by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
• On the 25th of August all Swedish diplomatic presence in the Baltic countries is terminated.

1946

• On the 25th of January all Baltic soldiers--the majority of them were Latvian citizens--are extradicted to the Soviet Union. (I saw a number of 30,000 quoted elsewhere.) This deserves particular mention considering how brutally the Red Army treated (including torture and execution) captured Latvians. PētersV (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"all Baltic veterans of Waffen SS, as well as different paramilitary units of the Nazi Germany--the majority of them were Latvian citizens--are extradicted to the Soviet Union". Fixed it for you. RJ CG 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You do know the Waffen SS was only formed in 1943. —PētersV 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I need to do some more research, though I suspect "forcibly repatriated" is probably a more accurate term. I would see no reason to repatriate anyone who was not Estonian, Latvian, or Lithuanian. This would have been consistent with Sweden's "recognition" policy. It's unfortunate (that word again) that there are those that believe they were all Nazis who deserved what they got when they were ostensibly returned home. —PētersV 02:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Baltic Waffen SS veterans were conscripts, all rehabilitated also by the Soviet Union according to the Nuremberg trials. Considering that the most if not all men at the age were conscripted into Waffen SS by the Nazis, in case captured by the soviets, they were just prisoners of war. That was the case also with the most of the Latvian Waffen SS units that surrendered in the Courland Pocket.--Termer 11:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
To RJ CG, there is a difference between Waffen SS units that were conscripts and volunteer Police battalions that were involved shooting civilians. Therefore using the "Latysh batallion" should be approached more carefully. My sympathies to your lost family members as well.--Termer 11:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm?

I am fully aware of the forceful inclusions of the three Baltic states - but occupation, even though they were republics just like Russia or Kazakhstan? --PaxEquilibrium 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

well, this just shows how bad idea is it to archive the talk pages. You'd need to go over the same thing from scratch. But OK, in case you PaxEquilibrium have any questions regarding the occupation I'd suggest looking into the refs in the article that speak about the topic. Thanks--Termer 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The joining was not legal, ergo they remained in a state of occupation. Their sovereignty continued to exist in exile (documented for all three states). For some background, I suggest Soviet Aggression Against the Baltic States. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth about "nationalist" sources, but one with irrefutable factual citations. Just because the Soviets lied doesn't mean those opposing the Soviets also lied in some out-lie the liar contest (the logical conclusion if you contend it's all just opinion). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article

It is missing a Soviet POV. --Unionvouce 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, see Occupation_of_Baltic_states#Historical.2C_pre-Perestroika_Soviet_sources. Martintg 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't occupy whats already yours

..seems to be the fundamental argument regarding the soviet Occupation of the Baltic states between 1944-1991? Thats fine, it's just another POV, please feel free to add it to the section. Just that I personally am more familiar with the POV that says the lands belonged to the Batic states and the only legal representatives of the states during the occupations 1940-1991 were the Baltic consulates in NY. So for me personally the "can't occupy whats already yours" doesn't make much sense since the lands belonged to the Baltic states, not to the Soviet Union. --Termer (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the problem is that invading does not equal possession. Hopefully, someday Russia will be have leadership more interested in integrity than in glorifying dead totalitarian empires. PētersV (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's impossible to occupy twice. How it's possible? Lets say Baltic states were occupied in 1940, logically thinking Baltic states should once again proclaim independence, and only now it is possible to occupy in second time. Well Lithuania declared independence in 1941, but this declaration was not recognised internationally, and even today Lithuania not recognise this act, but how about Latvia and Estonia. Now, how Germany could occupy Baltic states when such political entities don't existed? Tarakonas (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I steal your car. Pēters then steals the car from me. I beat Pēters up and take the car back, I'm not stealing the car, the car was mine when Pēters stole it from me! Martintg (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Situation is more complicated - Pēters thinks that car is yours not mine. So there was no occupation from Germany or there was occupation of some parts of Soviet Union. Tarakonas (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

However the car remains stolen property until it is returned to the original owner, regardless of how many hands it passes through. Martintg (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If the stolen property on the second day was taken from one criminal to another criminal, this not means the car was stolen from You. Tarakonas (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"So such political entities don't existed"? I'm sorry to point out that Tarakonas has missed something here, there was no need to declare independence simply because the "political entities" the only legal representation of Lithuania 1940-1991 recognized by the Western countries was the Lithuanian Consulate in NY. They had access to all the funds abroad belonging to the Republic of Lithuania, remained on the diplomatic list to the US from 1940-1991 etc. so no matter what's the POV of the Soviet Union, The POV of the Republic of Lithuania including the US, UK etc. was, the territories of Lithuania + other Baltic states were first occupied by USSR, then by Nazi Germany and then again by USSR until the restoration of sovereignty. Please see the refs in the article for further inf. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So why Lithuania declared independence in 1941 if the legal represenative was Lithuanian Consulate in NY? Tarakonas (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Lithuania also declared independence in 1991. You know, it's like Martintg reminding everybody once again whose the stolen car was in case anybody didn't get it yet.--Termer (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarakonas Germany occupied independent Lithuania though Latvia and Estonia as part of Soviet Union? please let me remind you that Germany did not recognize "independent Lithuania" but Lithuania as a part of USSR. Therefore it's only possible to state things here according to Soviet and Nazi Germany POV, meaning, the Baltic states were a part of USSR; or according to POV of the US, UK etc. and the Baltic States themselves, Germany occupied the territories of Baltic states that was not recognized by the Western allies as legal exactly like previous Soviet occupation.--Termer (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

John was robbed by Steve, on the next day Steve was robbed by Peter, after three days Peter was robbed by Steve, after fifty days Steve returned the car to John. How many times was robbed John? Only one time! But article says three occupations - this is really an WP:OR and WP:POV. And please, if source says workers welcomed with flowers, do not shorten. Tarakonas (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read the sources before claiming OR and POV (for example [5]: "After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991.")? And "source says workers welcomed with flowers" - does it mention double circle of Soviet sailors around them and that people were herded to "welcome" Soviets? -- Sander Säde 07:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been through this that you attempt to start all over again Tarakonas. the article is well sourced and written according to WP:NPOV all viewpoints are present therefor nothing justifies your playing around with this article by misusing tagging. --Termer (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

regarding the image Tarakonas has kindly provided for the article. If anything, this should go to the Pre perestroika Soviet sources. What I like the best about the image is the guy wearing the Young Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union uniform on the foreground. That's amazing that anybody in Lithuania had the uniform handy right after the Nazi occupation at the time when the Soviets marched into Kaunas and made it to the picture.--Termer (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Young Pioneer organization appeared already in 1940 in Lithuania. So why the boy couldn't dress himself in such uniform? Maybe his fathers were supporters of Soviet power? Photo is a photo, sources are sources. 200,000 families supported Soviets asking the land in 1940. Tarakonas (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the facts Tarakonas, 200,000 out of about 3.5 million gives a good proportion concerning the article and WP:NPOV policies. Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views . Also, regarding the flowers and etc. Please note another important principle about WP:NPOV The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. therefore it's the best to keep the image without any additional commentary to it. Thanks--Termer (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

200,000 families means about 1,000,000 persons or more. On 1940-01-01 in Lithuania lived 2925271 persons [6], in 1944 many emigrated (mostly opposing Soviets). Census of 1957 shows 2,697,000 persons. So I guess about 50/50, anyway not a small minority. Tarakonas (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tarakonas, regarding your last edit, just a friendly reminder that perhaps you should take another look at Wikipedia:Consensus before things get out of hand here. thanks!--Termer (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Where would quoted numbers such as "200,000 families supported Soviets asking the land in 1940" be coming from? Soviet "land reform" dispossessed farmers and collectivized the land. PētersV (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

More then 200,000 families asked land from kulaks (buožė). Only in Lithuanian [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarakonas (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't they loose the land soon after due to collectivisation policies?--Termer 11:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they loose the land, but later. In 1941-44 the land was returned to legitimate owners. The first Kolkhoz was established in 1947, and massive collectivisation was done in 1949-51 in Lithuanian SSR. Tarakonas (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image use

There is a lot of toing and froing surrounding this image:

File:1944 Kaunas.jpg

It is tagged as {{PD-Russia}} even though the rationale for this tag is not entirely clear. The stated source of the image is the Lithuanian website [8]; however, this website does not, from what I can see, either support the claim that the image is WP:PD, or that its copyright status should necessarily be governed by the relevant legislation of the Russian Federation. As such, I would be inclined to have this image tagged as being of indeterminate copyright status (cf. WP:SCV), and that it be deleted, should a copyright violation be determined. If, however, it is actually PD, then a better tag and explanation should be provided on the image page, i.e. either referring to Lithuanian copyright law (if the .lt website is retained as the image origin) or with a proper Soviet-era or Russian source for the image (to keep the Russian PD tag). — Zalktis (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, everything published by and in the Soviet Lithuania falls under Template:PD-Russia as the legal successor of the USSR. Lithuanian copyright law can only apply to things published by and in the the Republic of Lithuania. The only legal representative of the Republic in 1940-1991 was the consulate in NY and anything relevant: things published by them during the period would fall under the Lithuanian tag and relevant copyright law. Therefore I can't see any problems with copyright status, the image comes clearly from a soviet source. The fact that it is a staged photo can be a question for how appropriate the image is for an encyclopedia like WP. All kinds of political commentaries are not definitely appropriate. We do not need to explain the motives of anybody on the image whatever the alleged source says. The pic and the facts should speak for themselves --Termer (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, one can't just take a photo from a website or blog and declare that it's PD, 'cause it looks Soviet. For example, some of the images on the same web page in question are obviously from private collections. If this image is indeed from a standard Soviet-era work on Lithuania during the Great Patriotic War or suchlike, then that should be given as the original source instead. Then the PD-Russia tag could be appropriate ... depending on where, when, and how this image was first published (see the limitations mentioned in the template). — Zalktis (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You got a valid point there. The pic could be taken on May 9 1954 or any date and therefore not be in PD. The reason I doubt its anything shot in 1944-1945 is the communist youth guy in the white shirt at the foreground. So most likely it is a pic of a Soviet military parade from later time but when exactly needs to be determined.--Termer (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Soviet-German agreements under Chancellor Brandt established that the existing European borders were inviolable. The Helsinki Accords of 1975 declared that the European frontiers were inviolable. Furthermore, if there was a Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, why was this not discussed by the United Nations General Assembly? Why didn't emigrant groups pretending to be the governments of these countries get a seat or voice at the United Nations? International precedent shows that when there has been an occupation in the territories of Namibia and Palestine, there has been a demand for the withdrawal of foreign troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.1 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All the Helsinki Accords did was to recognise the borders in fact, not in law. When the Soviet Union holds veto power in the UN, ofcourse there will be no discussion when it is politically expedient. Martintg (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Helsinki Accords: In the US Gerald Ford's administration issued an official statement, affirmed by Congress on February 16, 1983 that reiterated American nonrecognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in order to counter speculation to the contrary following the signing of the Helsinki Accord. @ Diplomats Without a Country: Baltic Diplomacy, International Law, by James T. McHugh, James S. Pacy; P. 84 ISBN 0313318786 .--76.168.108.240 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The signatories of the Helsinki Accords recognized the territorial integrity and inviobility of a country's borders. This pertains to the Baltic states as it does to the Oder-Neisse line between Poland and Germany. The opinion of the United States administration does not have any binding legal force. Nor is the opinion of the United States credible on this issue in the context of the Cold War. There is there any consistency in this position considering the U.S. occupation of Puerto Rico and the repression of its people. Regarding the United Nations, the General Assembly could have easily passed a resolution demanding for the end to the alleged Soviet 'occupation' to the Baltic states as it did towards South Africa regarding Namibia. That the United Nations did not recognize a Soviet occupation of the Baltic states demonstrates that the opinion of the United States was isolated from international opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.1 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's all very interesting. In case ...Nor is the opinion of the United States credible on this issue in the context of the Cold War so would be any Soviet viewpoint and we can just ask the Baltic peoples themselves or we can just follow the opinion of the EU including the Baltic States, the European court of human rights etc. nowadays after the cold war has ended, at the times when the Helsinki Accords are meaningless. the opinions nowadays that are no different what the US had to say in the 70s or any other given time. So the bottom line, I miss your point. It's 2008, the cold war has ended including the occupation of Baltic states has ended, the Helsinki Accords have no meaning any more, so what exactly are you after is kind of hard to get over here.--76.168.108.240 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Another dissent towards comment left by IP user 204.102.210.1: the Helsinki Accords doesn't necessarily mean the facts on grounds recognition of the absolute inviolability of the national borders as it stood in 1975 because West Germany still held reunification as the ultimate goal. Also only the Baltic people themselves have the ultimate right to declare whether the Soviet Union constituent republics from 1940 to 1991 were legitimate governments or usurper regimes. A more extreme example, but pointing example, is Poland: the official historiography today says the People's Republic from 1945 to 1990 was the usurper regime and the legitimate government was the government-in-exile in London, despite the on the ground government in Warsaw being the People's Republic of Poland and that was the very state that every other foreign nation recognized at that time - the diplomatic angle has zero effects on the national historiography. Perhaps one day if the People's Republic of China crumbles and the Republic of China returns to China as the legitimate government of all China, all textbooks would need to be rewritten to reflect the de jure fact that the Chinese government between 1949 and, say, 2015, was based in Taipei and the Beijing government being an usurper. (Of course I'm taking it too bit far, grin) And coming back to the Baltic states: their own national historiography reports that the SSRs were considered occupational/usurper regimes by their own people and by the states today, and you as a foreigner should just accept this decision. It doesn't matter if your interpretation of the Helsinki Accords says otherwise. --JNZ (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The inclusion of Nazi Germany as those that recognized the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States is not relevant to the discussion or the historical period. The relevant section pertains to the attitudes of certain States towards the Baltic States in the 1945-91 period rather than in 1940. Nazi recognition of Soviet annexation had of course been nullified by the 1941-45 war.

Others persist in either consciously or unconsciously making false statements in this article. For instance, it is stated that German-occupied Netherlands recognized the Soviet annexation. In fact, it was the Netherlands Government in London which recognized the USSR de jure, without any reservations as regards the Baltic States. There is a false statement made regarding Spanish recognition of the annexation. But there were no diplomatic relations between Spain and Russia between 1939-75. Such recognition was accorded with the restoration of diplomatic relations between th two countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.1 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thats all fine but once you have such a take on the subject, just that please let me point out: all recognitions of Soviet annexation had of course been nullified by now as the Soviet occupation has ended and the troops have pulled out from the Baltic states more than 10 years ago by now. --76.168.108.240 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree re: Nazi Germany, as the only other country at the time which also recognized the annexation de jure was Sweden, and that recognition by Sweden continued after the war. Circumstances under which recognition was granted is significant. Australia's de jure recognition was granted by a documented Baltophobe and someone who couldn't tell the Baltics apart from the Balkans in their parliamentary inquiry hearings--but they were sucking up to the Soviets because they fancied themselves a candidate for U.N. Secretary General. (Those two individuals were solely responsible for the recognition, which was granted contrary to all prior statements regarding official position of the Australian government.) —PētersV (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It must be said that this de jure recognition by Australia was formally withdrawn on December 17, 1975, following the elections on December 4, which saw the defeat of Whitlam. Martintg (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add it was Don Willesee who was currying the favor of the Soviets. The announcement of Australia's de jure recognition of the Soviet takeover was even issued in Moscow. —PētersV (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized and retitled (need to shorted) the "Controversies" section. Re: Spain I think it was 1977. Whether the annexation was recognized depends on how diplomatic relations were established. Recognition of sovereignty over territory is by inheritance. If Spain and the USSR reestablished relations, then the Baltics were excluded. A separate recognition would have been needed specifically relative to the Baltics; resumption of recognition does NOT automatically include recognition of all territorial changes. —PētersV (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to copy edit this abit, it is not clear in the paragraph structure which countries offered de jure, de facto, or none of the above. Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do, basically I tried ordering along: de jure, de facto not dejure, and neither de facto nor de jure. It does get a bit lost in the list of countries as I tried to summarize it. —PētersV (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, added back Canada quote which I had pushed into ref plus some new tidbits on Sweden. —PētersV (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deportations

I don't have the ref handy, but the 6.000 (actually I think I saw 7,000 originally) comes from research by Dov Levin. That's obviously much higher than the newly inserted Latvian archives number. I'll try and track that original ref down again (that is, Levin's article, note people quoting it), it should probably mention as a "possible high" range. PētersV (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1939

I feel that the inclusion of historical context is necessary. For the past 1000 years there has been competition among forces including the Germanic Crusaders, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and Russia for control of Latvia and Estonia. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania had all at one point come under soviet rule in the 1917-1919 period, only to be overthrown by either the Germans, Poles, Entente interventionists, and their allies in the Baltic states. During the interwar period Moscow had never reconciled itself to having lost the Ukrainian and Belorussian provinces annexed by Poland, Moldavia annexed by Romania, and the separation by the Baltic states from Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.1 (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is already a number of "History of XXXX" articles that adequately cover the period. Martintg (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

During the interwar period Moscow had never reconciled itself... that's interesting from where exactly do you get such ideas since peace treaties signed by Moscow like for example Treaty of Tartu etc. speak of exact opposite: Moscow renounced in perpetuity all rights to the territory of Estonia. Unless of course you have access to some sort of inside interpretations coming directly from Moscow, that would be interesting to know what else does it say? --76.168.108.240 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to start off with "Come now!" (there's a history of POV-pushing on this topic), but I'll take that to be an honest question. For example,

• Moscow attempted a putsch in Estonia (1924) barely after the ink was dry on the first treaties.
• Even the treaty of commerce between the USSR and Latvia (1927) was a geopolitical weapon. The Soviets used the treaty to lure Latvia into building industrial capacity that could have only been used for output for the Soviets. As Latvia predictably struggled to meet its treaty commitments for production, the Soviets reneged or let agreements lapse; meanwhile diplomatically-protected Soviet agents stirred unrest among the unemployed the Soviets had created.

What the Soviets signed and said was not what they intended or did. That's rather the whole point here. —PētersV (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Now it is getting funny, user 204.102.210.1. You wanted us all to believe the Helsinki Accords signed in 1975 must be read such that all other signatories accept and respect the Soviet Union's claimed territorial expansion post-WWII wise as de jure, but the Treaty of Tartu doesn't mean the words state. And an international treaty is infinitely more binding than a declaration from the basics of international relations. --JNZ (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the Helsinki Accords, you will find that absolutely nothing is said of borders, only of frontiers. The agreement was that the established frontiers would not be violated. Frontiers are nothing but current lines of demarcation. Absolutely nothing de jure about anything in the accords. Although Baltic nationalists in particular saw the signing as a sell-out. —PētersV (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, and in fact this makes things even clearer. It appears all the West was saying would be they would not use force to unilaterally change the "established frontiers" i.e. send in the military to liberate the Baltic states, but of course says nothing of what happens if the frontiers change from within, which is exactly what turned out in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. --JNZ (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Former President Ford made that point exactly (change from within) in an interview years later. I rather thought, though, that he painted the Accords as more of a positive influence than they were in actuality. —PētersV (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename: missing the

Hello, hopefully no one will object that I move the page to Occupation of the Baltic states... The current title is missing the... Renata (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, the non-"the" version never did read correctly. :-) PētersV (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The long lead-up to Yalta

I added some additional references primarily with regard to the Baltics although also including at various points other parts of Eastern Europe. There's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over Western betrayal and who had what choices and whose hands were forced and how. I intentionally stayed away from that by only presenting quotes and not making any editorial conclusions other than the obvious, which is that as demonstrated by Eden's position, the Baltics had once again become pawns. —PētersV (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That the Holocaust could only be so effective with widespread popular support

I'm sorry, but I just heard this (same implication) at Columbia University re: Poland, someone asking a presenter: "Do you think it would be just as easy to set up widespread death camps in Poland today?" Let's not confuse the Germans' capacity for efficiency with "widespread" popular support. There is incontrovertible documentation the Nazi command lied about local support to portray local welcoming and acceptance of the Nazi regime. It's unfortunate that the vast majority (I've heard 90% quoted) of Holocaust studies are taught by people who are not trained historians. Let's keep the blame for the Holocaust where it belongs: Hitler, the Nazis, and their proven collaborators. —PētersV (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer:

Unfortunately what i wrote about the strong Lithuanian nationalism ... the Jews being associated with Soviet support (rightly or wrongly)....contributing to the anti-jewish sentiment, which increased the already traditional anti-semetism ... this is all true. See Sharunas Leikis (Vilnius University) and other researchers of the matter concerning this... the Lithuanian cooperation towards the genocide... was widespread in lithuania... ask most (over 95%) of holocaust survivors....ask any Lithuanian who father or grandfather was a policeman in the countryside at the time ... ask lithuanians (their were many at the time doing so) living in Kaunus... i think my text should be put back since it is simply the truth. There were of course exeptions. Exceptions to the rule (there is a book concerning this too).

Concerning "Trained Historians" - fortunetly or unfortunately history is not black and white and there is much room for interpretation - yes, even by "trained historians". The genocide rate by many accounts was one of the highest if not the highest in Europe. The relative local cooperation (in Lithuania) and the relative lack of jewish assimilation (in many areas of Eastern Europe - including Lithuania) are factors contributing to this - yes, factually and historically. Where cooperation was not all pervasive the genocide rate wasn't as absolute (nearing %100) as in Lithuania) - France, the Neatherlands. Where the resistance to the Nazi policy towards Jews, Roma, Communists, and others (which every one knew about) was presant there was (nearly) no genocide - Denmark, Bulgaria.

Historically and factually ... we must account for the truth ... what accounts for the differences?

The Nazi ecouraged and profiled, (in Hungary it were the fascists, in Lithuania national resistors to the Soviets), their welcomming in their so-called "Ost Gebiet".

In lithuania ... in the first few months (2-3 months) of the occupation ... it was called a liberation (from the Soviets).... There was no lack of cooperation. I too wish it was otherwise ...

Within 6 months of the occupation the Lithuanian Jews were either slaughtered or sealed into Ghettos where their fate was sealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.234.83 (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Surveys on attitudes and beliefs on Eastern Europe and its participation in the Holocaust align along some predictable, some not so predictable, boundaries. Those who survived the Holocaust, those who teach Holocaust studies, for example, are much more inimical in their statements of local participation than historians (both Jewish and non-Jewish)--that is, the divide is not along religious/ethnic lines but according to personal experience and extrapolations and generalizations thereof versus rigorous historical inquiry. Here on WP I've been told that the "majority" of Latvians were eager for the opportunity to pick up guns and slaughter Jews. And, certainly, with the actions of Latvian-staffed SD units in Belarus and reportedly as far as Poland, one can easily paint a picture that support for the Holocaust was so fervent that it spread outside the territory of Latvia. And the Holocaust "could not have succeeded without widespread support." That accusation has been leveled against the Balts, Ukrainians, Poles,... As I've focused most of my time on the situation in Latvia, I can tell you that the portrayal of widespread local support has been unequivocally documented to be the manufacture of Nazi propaganda. The reality is that the community of such Latvian collaborators at least was on the order of a thousand--not an entire people hell-bent on annihilation of the Jews, a community with whom there was a centuries-long positive relationship. Your point on whether the Jewish community was, or was not, assimilated, and that lack of assimilation made it easier for Jews to be slaughtered, is completely invalid. (However, that lack of assimilation and Jews tending to live together in one quarter of a town or city, certainly made it much easier for the Nazis to seize their victims.) Jewish practice, that is, following the orthodox practices, is an obstacle to assimilation. It is a leap, however, that orthodoxy should be an impediment to a positive relationship of intertwined, though separate, communities. There's no attempt to deny the Holocaust or to deny that the Nazis had their collaborators here, only the statement that one must not present perceptions, no matter how plausible or convincing or heartfelt, as the ultimate reality.

   Is there a sense Jews supported the Soviet when they invaded? It's funny you should ask that as at least American Jewish leadership has vehemently denounced any mention of any possible action by the Eastern European Jewish community that could possibly be looked at askance, for example, exploited by Nazi propagandists. Any "success" of the Holocaust in Eastern Europe is uniformly blamed on centuries-old Eastern European anti-Semitism. I can only say that from our own family's experiences, the Soviets brought in Jewish workers to replace Latvians in key situations (such as the post/telephone). Do I think they were therefore collaborators? Hardly, like everyone else under a Soviet occupation where people just disappear, just someone else trying to stay alive.

   That I can attend a seminar in 2008 discussing the relations of Jews and Poles, for example, and have someone in the audience ask, sincerely, "Do you think it would be just as easy to set up Jewish death camps in Poland today?" reflects--again--less a historical reality more a perceptual reality. Ultimately "asking" individuals or groups for their experiences and then generalizing to the total population is fraught with inaccuracy. (I would also mention the issue of Poland applies to Vilnius, a significant number of Holocaust victims came from territory which was Polish between the wars and which people have counted "toward" Lithuania subsequent to the Nazi invasion and territorial un-annexation/un-occupation/re-annexation/re-occupation depending on which side of the Polish-Lithuanian conflict you find yourself.)

   How many perished and where should be accurately reflected. Laying blame on the Nazis is appropriate. Laying blame on an entire ethnicity, be it Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian,... for "widespread support" of the Holocaust, killing Jews in eager anticipation of the Nazis, etc., is not appropriate. —PētersV (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet colonisation efforts

The article should mention the Soviet colonisation efforts and resulting shifts in demography of the region during the second Soviet occupation preferably with accompanying statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.196.42 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometnig is broken

Please see top of section "Soviet re-occupation, 1944-1991" and fix, whoever knows what's going on here. `'Míkka>t 19:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Renata (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:German Soviet.jpg

Resolved

The image Image:German Soviet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A greeting card from a Soviet captain in 1939, Ventspils, Latvia

I've uploaded my granddad's greeting card to the WikiCommons. Might be useful. Sent home at the end of 1939. Says "Happy New Year of 1940". --CopperKettle (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia SSRs recognized by most countries

Most governments which recognised the USSR after World War II in effect granted de jure recognition to the Baltic republics.

Edgars Dunsdorfs, The Baltic Dilemma: The Case of the de Jure Recognition, p.77 RZimmerwald (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then provide the list of such countries from the source. Otherwise it remains obscure. --Erikupoeg (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for any of that, the article spells it out according to WP:RS in utmost detail who exactly recognized the SSR and granted de jure recognition and who didn't.--Termer (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunsdorfs states clearly that most countries that formed dimplomatic relations with the USSR extended de jure recognition. There is no need to list the position of every state in a world where 192 countries exsit. That Erikupoeg proceeded to delete this fact demonstrates a rather hostile attitude. RZimmerwald (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

using "Most" on WP is in conflict with WP:WEASEL and any such statements should be avoided as not encyclopedic. Please feel free to add any solid facts according to any WP:RS you might be aware of instead.--Termer (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a quote from some kind of parliamentary/government proceedings. It is marked with quotation marks in the original. See excerpt here, note that the lower excerpt refers to a different page. Apparently it is not a statement by Mr. Dunsdorfs, but bv someone else. Yaan (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I recognise User:RZimmerwald's pattern of behaviour. He googlebookses a random piece of text that appears to support his idea du jour, then pretends it's an immensely important tidbit by "serious scholars", no matter what else scholars have written on the topic. He does so on a large number of articles dealing with former Soviet spheres of influence.

Under WP:BITE, I'm obligated to point out that this pattern can be consistent with that of a newbie, although some of his actions tend to point more towards a sockpuppet. Would somebody who's better than me with that sort of thing please explain to him how the policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE work together? If he's a newbie, he'll get better; if he's, say, a reincarnation of Anonimu, the trolling will become that much clearer. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 02:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Dunsdorf's works. In fact I had even corresponded with him prior to his death. Now as for RZimmerwald's ridiculous edit and bad-faith accusations of hostility:

• The passage in question (indeed all of page 77) is part of Senator Willesee's prepared statement for the Australian Senate
• Willesee was Edward Whitlam's mouthpiece in justifying Whitlam's/Australia's (ultimately short-lived) de jure recognition of Baltic annexation by the USSR.
• Willesee couldn't keep Balkans and Baltics straight in his testimony before the Senate. Nor did he demonstrate any understanding of the difference between de facto and de jure. Sad for a minister of foreign affairs.
• Willesee was censured by the Senate for supporting the de jure recognition.
• Australia's "recognition" of de jure annexation was announced from Moscow, not Australia, and why? It was speculated that Whitlam fancied himself the next Secretary General of the U.N.; Willesee held the same ambition.
• In fact, it's quite clear from Willesee's statements and testimony that he was clueless about Baltic history in general and about Baltic annexation in particular; for whatever reason, he blindly served a documented Baltophobic prime minister who, prior to Willesee's assuming post of minister of foreign affairs, in the role of prime minister acting as minister of foreign affairs, solely on his own initiative with no consultation decided to grant de jure recognition to the incorporation of the Baltics into the USSR.

WP is not a home for anti-Baltic clap-trap. I suggest RZimmeran take his/her extraordinarily poor knowledge of Baltic history and most especially their contentions of hostility and vandalism regarding editors who justifiably dispute/revert their edits elsewhere. —PētersV (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for nationalistic agitprop. To insult users for posessing an allegedly "poor knowledge of Baltic history" is unacceptable. Readers do not care to hear your insult a statesmen as "Baltophobic". If there is a statement to be found that most countries which formed diplomatic relations with the USSR after WWII recognized Soviet Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, then it has a place in this article. There is an appeal to authority fallacy in the section about the diplomatic position of certain countries as though it undermines the legitimacy of Soviet Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. But as has been pointed out in Dunsdorf's source, far more many states extended de jure recognition Soviet Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.RZimmerwald (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the text you quote from Dunsdorf is an excerpt from an Australian parliamentary procedure called "Question Time" where members of parliament can ask any questions, including rhetorical questions, to government ministers. I think inserting text based on quotes of questions asked or opinions expressed by an obscure antipodean politician back in 1975 would be considered WP:UNDUE. Martintg (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Forgot to clarify the above after responding to RZimmerwald. It is Willesee's prepared statement as recorded (with introductory question and comments included on Dunsdorfs' p.76) in the Senate Hansard (official record of Australian parliamentary proceedings), p.781-782 for that session. Pushing Willesee's understanding of anything Baltic goes far beyond WP:UNDUE. I should mention that after quoting Willessee's statement, Dunsdorfs goes on to completely and utterly demolish him (based on simple facts). —PētersV (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Clearly then RZimmerwald is tendatiously mis-quoting Dunsdorfs. Martintg (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear RZimmerwald. You want to play games, fine. Who have I insulted? The only person I "insulted" was Willesee, and rightly so--the man couldn't tell the Balkans from the Baltics as documented by his recorded testimony. That you have represented what Willesee states as encyclopedic speaks for itself. For his part, Whitlam is documented to have called Baltic immigrants "f**king Vietnamese" (i.e., undesirable boat people). The account you reference on page 77 has nothing to do with Dunsdorfs. Only on WP are simple facts called "nationalistic agitprop." Your denunciations betray your POV. —PētersV (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How is there even a debate that Donald Willesee is a reliable, useful source in this discussion? If RZimmerwald wants to use this source, I find it pretty clear that the burden is on him to give some persuasive reasoning as to why the controversy concerning this source doesn't disqualify it as reliable. Blue Danube (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What? the claim of Willesee given in his speech is a reliable source? Nobody would object if it said what the fact is all about: that Willesee claimed in his speech when he justified the de jure recognition of Estonian, Latvian Lithuanian SSR-s by his government that "...The most of etc.", Once again, this is not a fact but a claim made by Willesee that cost him loosing the office and ended with Australia withdrawing the de jure recognition given by Willesee shortly afterwards.--Termer (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

contrast to the Free City of Danzig

Hi Vecrumba, I noticed you attempted to copyedit the additions by Ulf Heinsohn [9]. I think it would benefit the article if such not sourced political commentaries would be simply removed in the future. In case anybody thinks the Free City of Danzig is somehow related to this article, fine, but then any facts or opinions should come from WP:RS sources that do analyze and show the connection.--Termer (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I support Termer here. What does Danzig has to do with this? Baltic Sea? Then Finland, Bornholm, and Eastern Prussia are just as legitimate. I don't think someone includes Danzig in the term "Baltic states" Dc76\^talk 06:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)