Talk:Soviet re-occupation of the Baltic states (1944)

POV title

As Baltic republics were part of Soviet Union in 1941 when they were occupied by the Nazi Germany, I do not think using the word "occupation" is appropriate here. It merely reflects Baltic POV at expense of the Soviet POV from which it was "liberation" rather than "occupation". (Igny (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Is this supported by any source? I don't think Roger Dale Petersen[1], Clarence Augustus Manning[2], Alexander Statiev[3] are Balts. Nor is the Oxford companion to World War II[4] published by Oxford University Press a Baltic publication. So I am not sure what you mean by "Baltic POV" Could you provide a cite to something claiming it was liberation? --Martin (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Only official Russia and its supporters maintain the Baltic states were ever legally part of the Soviet Union. This has nothing to do with a "Baltic" POV. It's time to give the old saw that Baltic peoples are seeking to besmirch the Soviet Union by wrongly accusing it of occupation a rest. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you are able to find an RS somewhere here. (Igny (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Just one of many examples. (Igny (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

@Igny, certainly "Volume 15 of the Russian Archive" and other Russian accounts likely qualify for the Soviet/Russian version of history, which version—not necessarily even reflecting verified factual occurrences—I myself have documented at a number of articles dealing with portrayal of the Soviet legacy while other editors simply tagged articles and complained without making any further contribution. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nor does reliable scholarship support your initial contention, whence your POV accusation flows, that the Baltic states were ever de jure Soviet republics. So, unless you can present reliable sources in that regard, I shall be removing the POV tag. Your edit summary adding the POV tag back, while technically correct (anon IP etc.) does not address the anon IP's edit summary that there was insufficient evidence for the tag in the first place; nor does your edit summary indicate you put the POV tag back after four months of it being removed.

For any passers-by:

• The Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania—Finland was also included originally when all four gained independence from the Russian Empire), were sovereign free nations after WWI
• Declared neutral countries, they were coerced under explicit threat of invasion to agree to pacts of "mutual assistance" to station Soviet troops on their territories (Finland, which declined the same offer, was invaded)
• They were invaded and occupied (occupation #1) by the Soviet Union under patently false pretenses
• They were annexed to the Soviet Union at the "request" of Soviet-installed puppet governments—election results released prematurely in London, as high as 137% participation in precincts in Lithuania—such enthusiasm!, etc. etc.
• The first mass deportations were executed one week before the German invasion of the Soviet Union; of note is that even before the sham play of joining the Soviet Union, while even the Soviet Union maintained the now puppet states were "sovereign," citizens of those territories—including most of their legitimate governments—were being killed or deported from their country to the Soviet Union; rather fortunate for the USSR that act was only officially made a crime after WWII; note that the Fourth Geneva convention also made it criminal for occupying powers to settle their own civilians in occupied territory
• They were invaded and occupied by Germany (occupation #2)
• They were invaded and re-occupied (occupation #3) by the Soviet Union; of note is that the Courland Pocket in Latvia held out until the end of the war, it was only Germany's surrender and then secret British and American commitments to not attack the USSR over their acknowledged violation of Baltic sovereignty that caused the last bit of Baltic territory still in Baltic hands to fall to Soviet forces.

And so, this article is—completely appropriately, both in title and content—#3 in the overall series regarding the "Occupation of the Baltic states." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Pēters has spelled this out very nicely. The Baltic states were by no stretch of the imagination 'liberated', as they only became part of the Soviet chimaera when their independence was violated illegally back in 1939. That was, of course, still the time when Stalin and Hitler were rather cozy with one another. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

@Igny, "Volume 15 of the Russian Archive" is a primary source, there is the danger of WP:OR if one attempts to use primary sources directly. How about something more contemporary? How about the Professor and Dean of the School of International Relations at St. Petersburg (Leningrad) State University, Konstantin K. Khudoley? I wonder what this Russian scholar has to say on the topic, let's see, from [5]:

"When, in autumn 1939, the Soviet Union forced the Baltic governments to sign the Treaties on Bases that allowed Soviet troops onto their territories, Stalin announced that he did not intend to establish Soviet rule in the Baltic states. In reality, he was simply biding his time. By June 1940, the time was ripe. The great powers, shocked by Germany's defeat of France, had their attention focused on Western Europe. No one was able to oppose Soviet policy towards the Baltic states. It is likely that Stalin wanted to occupy the Baltic states and Bessarabia (including Bucovina, which was not mentioned in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) as quickly as possible. It is assumed that he was afraid of the rising power of Germany (nobody in Moscow expected France to fall so quickly) and the possibility that Germany might renegotiate the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact in its favour.

On 15-16 June 1940, the Soviet Union demanded that more of its troops be allowed onto the territories of the Baltic states and that the governments of the three countries be changed. This demand was met, and power over domestic affairs duly transferred to Soviet emissaries Andrey Zhdanov (Estonia), Audrey Vyshinskiy (Latvia) and Vladimir Dekanozov (Lithuania). New elections were quickly organised according to the 'one candidate-one seat' system. Opposition forces could not participate. The elections were neither free nor fair, and thus the decisions of the newly elected parliaments to join the Soviet Union cannot be considered legitimate. These decisions were not approved by the upper chambers of the parliaments of the Baltic states, even though such approval was required by the countries' constitutions. These decisions were nothing more than evidence of Soviet dictatorship.

In seeking to justify the occupation of the Baltic states, Soviet and many Russian historians have utilised the argument of military advisability, which was presented during Second World War by Stalin to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Yet the occupation of the Baltic states made the Soviet Union neither weaker nor stronger in the face of possible German aggression. The occupation bolstered anti-Soviet public opinion in the USA and United Kingdom - potential Soviet allies in case of German aggression — as well as engendering resistance in the Baltic states themselves. Nationalisation of industry and services, imposition of communist dogmas in cultural life, declining living standards and, most especially, mass deportations all created a backdrop for mass hatred of the Soviet Union, and led some circles to express sympathy for Germany and the Nazi regime. The subsequent guerrilla movement in the Baltic republics after the Second World War created domestic problems for the Soviet Union, using up already limited military and economic resources during the 1940s and 1950s."

No mention of "liberation" in Professor Khudoley's writings, and you will not find it in any reliable secondary source. The notion that the Soviets "liberated" the Baltic states rather than occupied them really is a fringe viewpoint. --Martin (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

With that, I think we should remove the POV-title tag. There's no legitimate debate here as to the matter of 'occupation'. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree. All I have seen in the above discussion was an attempt to convince me that such a POV exists that Baltic were occupied from 1940s through 1980s. Well, you wasted your time, as I never argued with that fact or never argued with all the sources which supported such POV. All of this however fails to address the issue which I have been raising. There is a bias in the interpretation of these historical events in favor of one particular POV at expense of the other. The Soviet POV is still strongly present in modern Russian historiography and scholarship, and no matter how hard you argue against including any or all the sources from this list, it'd only convince me that you are here not to create a neutral encyclopedia but to advocate a particular position and merely dismiss the opposite POV as "non-existent" or something. (Igny (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Igny, does it not say something that given the entire body of English language scholarship, you need to rely upon Russian language sources? This is English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, see WP:NONENG. This is for good reason, the vast majority of Wikipedians don't speak Russian, providing a link to a Google search of a Russian language term and expecting us to search, evaluate and verify the suitability of a particular Russian language sources for an English language encyclopaedia is a bit much. That is tantamount to engaging in OR. I'm sure the Soviet POV claims "liberation", but there is no requirement to balance modern Western scholarship with Soviet POV. That would be like requiring we add the Nazi POV to the Holocaust article, which would be a ridiculous proposition. I found a source that states "And so the German Army liberated the whole of the Baltic area from Bolshevik rule", but I am not going to dispute the article title Occupation of Estonia by the German Empire. What we need is scholarly sources, preferably in English. I've provided a piece of scholarship by the Russian Professor Khudoley (who is also the Vice-Rector of St. Petersburg State University) that contradicts your viewpoint. At least provide a cite to a paper written by another Russian academic of similar stature to Professor Khudoley if you cannot find anything in English. --Martin (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, it never said to conform to English sources only.(Igny (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

@Igny, as I've stated, I myself have added Soviet/Russian (as it conforms to Soviet) historiography to WP articles. That version of history, per reputable "non-partisan" (i.e., not Soviet, not Russian, not Baltic) scholarship, does not even conform to verified facts. That official Russia disagrees with "occupation"—as in the Minister of Defense stating "То, что говорят, что СССР оккупировал прибалтийские государства - это абсурд и чушь. Нельзя оккупировать то, что тебе принадлежит"—is noted in numerous EN WP articles, as appropriate. That official Russia or historians supporting its position (Dyukov et al.) disagree does not make the opposite view to theirs either POV or "Baltic" POV, nor, again, does it imply in any way that the Russian position itself is based on independently verifiable facts.

Your argument here seeks to reduce the so-called "conflict" to the Baltics say "X" and Russia says "Y", it's all a matter of opinion. What you fail to acknowledge is the third party: non-partisan scholarship which also states "X". There is no argument over WP:TRUTH here, only what reputable dispassionate scholarship states based on verified facts versus what you would (incorrectly) characterize as merely competing Baltic/Soviet/Russian opinions regarding an identical set of verified facts. The Soviet/official Russian position is given the weight it deserves, no less, no more. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unreasonable to expect non-Russian speakers to trawl through Russian language publications. WP:VERIFY is a core policy, that is why there is a preference for English language sources. WP:VERIFY also requires that exceptional claims are backed by high-quality sources per WP:REDFLAG so I asked Igny to provide some cites to Russian language scholarship and he hasn't delivered. I can understand why, searching the term "освобождение балтики" in Google Scholar gets zero hits. --Martin (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Igny, unless you can cough up some serious support (i.e. reliable secondary sources) for your position, I think this debate can be closed and the tag removed from the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you can not demand anything of the sort per WP:DEADLINE among other things. I have already demonstrated existence and seriousness of the problem with biasedness of the article and its contributors here. Now in order to actually fix the problem, I would have to sift through a whole bunch of links and come up with a good compromise solution and in contrast to my opponents I do not have a team of supporters with a lot of free time on hands. So it may require some time, although after a quick glance at the links I already found p64 of this book for example. (Igny (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Give me a quote from WP:DEADLINE that says that I cannot ask for the removal of a tag for which no evidence (beyond fringe theories) exists. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a quote from WP:FRINGE from which you concluded I did not provide enough evidence? (Igny (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

"One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research." You have provided very few sources to support your position, and I don't think that any of them say that "occupation" is an incorrectly used POV term in this situation. There is, however, a prevailing viewpoint to the contrary, as demonstrated by Pēters and Martin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. But kudos for being able to find something totally irrelevant to this discussion. (Igny (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Try [6]. (Igny (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Even among those are sources which poke holes in "liberation", referring, for example, to Soviet textbooks promulgating the "myth of voluntary accession." Again, produce non-partisan reliable sources for your contentions. Where is the basis for the original Soviet annexation being legal? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if Igny had of placed quotes around the term "освобождение прибалтики" , he would have only received 11 hits. Apparently this view point that the Soviets did not occupy anyone is called the "Myth of 1939—40" by David Mendeloff, according to him this form of historical amnesia is deeply imbedded Russian historical consciousness. --Martin (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You can come up with as many sources which ridicule or dismiss the Russian POV as you want. It does not make the Russian POV any more "fringe" or less "notable" or this article any more "neutral", or you any more "impartial". (Igny (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

Well it isn't really "Russian POV", is it, certainly not amongst distinguished academics like Professor Khudoley, vice Rector of Saint Petersburg State University, who calls it occupation and is clear about the illegality of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. It is more a political viewpoint of the Russian Government, which Associate Professor David Mendeloff calls the "Myth of 1939—40". It certainly is a notable viewpoint and it has been duly noted in the body of the article, but we don't give myths equal weight as facts. --Martin (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your "myth" and I raise you mine. This is really going nowhere. I would suggest you prod your recent creation.(Igny (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

Yes, the argument that Germany was larger makes Baltic occupation a myth. Let's see some sources which support non-occupation (that is, including lawful annexation) based on historically verified facts as opposed to collections of syllogisms. I regret your tone here appears to treat this as a game. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am not here to debunk the occupation claims. I am here to debunk your debunking the Russian claims. This debate is going to nowhere because for every "liberation" in scare quotes I can easily find "occupation" in scare quotes. For any your "myth claims" I can find the opposite myth claims. If you think comparison to German occupation is unwarranted, then placing them both into one article amounts to SYNTH and OR. If you think that Medvinky's arguments are flawed, I could easily claim the same about Mendeloff's speculations about Russian consciousness. Clearly, the situation is more complex than you are trying to portray here. The article will remain POV because it does not address Russian POV adequately and merely presents the Baltic POV as a historical fact, which it is not. (Igny (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

It has been demonstrated earlier that the so-called "Baltic POV" is not limited to Baltic historians; rather, it is a commonly accepted view held by most if not all western historians and a number of Russian historians as well. Also, how do you propose we incorporate your Soviet POV into the article? What do you want us to change the title to? "Liberation" cannot be used, as you have not brought forth sufficient evidence to support that this is a mainstream view (and no, your Google search does not count; some of the top results are Russian nationalist/revisionist forums that fail RS by a long shot). I don't see any evidence that we should include the "liberation" POV in this article with any more weight and seriousness than the Operation Barbarossa article treats the views of Viktor Suvorov on the Soviet offensive plans controversy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, there is nothing to "debunk," the official Russian (née Soviet) version of history regarding Soviet actions in the Baltics is not even factual, which is why there is no support for it in western scholarship nor in a growing community of reputable Russian scholarship, even in the face of Russia's "truth" control commission. You seek to portray this as Baltic "opinion" versus Russian "opinion". That's simply not the case—but it's the only way you can insist on giving grossly undue weight to the official Russian position (in addition to insisting on its validity), that is, anything in opposition to official Russian pronouncements is simply another opinion, reputably verified facts don't matter in the discussion, it's all political anyway, etc,. etc. etc.. There are opinions that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese—we don't see those given opposite and equal treatment to the earth is a sphere and the moon is made of rock. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re tag

I retagged the whole article as POV. For just a single example out of so many, could someone explain to me the relevance of the following statement to the matter the article purports to discuss?(Igny (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Events such as the discovery of the Katyn massacre in 1943 and Stalin's callous conduct towards the Warsaw uprising in 1944 did cast shadows over their relations.

This has been fixed now for several days, anything else specific? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Lack of adequate coverage of the Russian POV. (Igny (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC))

That's awfully vague. You have not elucidated yet as to what that really means, let alone whether or not it is worthy of inclusion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but specifics are yet to be figured out. Any suggestions? (Igny (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC))

How about a sentence or two explaining how the official Soviet position was that they fancied themselves to be "liberators", in spite of the fact that they were generally not regarded as such? You haven't brought forth any evidence as of yet proving that this is a legitimate, accepted academic point of view, so I think that a single brief mention would be giving it the weight it deserves. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Of course, we already have the quote from Stalin explaining his take on the matter. I personally believe that's enough, but... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Untagged

Timing wise I untagged after reading Igny's "rhetorical question", so was unaware it was apparently just tagged. This is not give up arguing one point why it's POV so find some other reason to tag it again. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? (Igny (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

I took your statement above as meaning you just retagged after someone else had untagged it, but you were apparently talking of your initial re-tag. As for you actual retag citing "unresolved issues," does that still include occupation or have you moved on to other issues?

The issues have just been widened from the title to the whole article. I thought I was clear in the edit summary (Igny (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

You can't say the whole article sucks without specific examples and explaining the specific issue, citing sources to the contrary of current content. You were, in fact, correct about Katyn et al. not being related, I've fixed that along with a few other issues in surrounding content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Igny's objection to the move five months later...

There was no annexation which occurred in 1944. Please move the article back. There has been no discussion of the article for 3 months, including no discussion of any move. I'm giving you the opportunity to self revert. If you wish to suggest a move, follow recommended procedures. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Annexation was interrupted by the Nazi occupation, and continued in 1944. Unfortunately, Martin did not follow the proper procedure when he made his unilateral move in December, which resulted in unneeded drama over POV title later. My move back to the original title would hopefully resolve any issues caused by Martin's choice of the title. (Igny (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

Thank you kindly for a suggestion to self-revert, but at the moment I would have to decline your offer. If Martin agrees to file an RM, he is welcome to do so, and if the consensus emerges that the new title is better I would be happy to self-revert then. (Igny (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

And you are factually wrong that annexation did not occur in 1944. Apparently you forgot the history of Vilnius. (Igny (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

Whatever "annexation" of the Baltic states in 1944 that you speak of is not mentioned in the Vilnius article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "Annexation was interrupted by the Nazi occupation": This dispute regarding annexation as an event vs. as a period of time has not been settled on the main talkpage as of last I checked, so using it as rationale here is unacceptable, in my opinion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the POV-title tag. Do we have a good chance here to rename the article to "liberation of the Baltic states", what do you think? (Igny (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

I agree. No source describes two annexations, only one which occured in 1940. --Martin (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there was only one period of annexation and it continued in 1944-90. If you still think that there is no such thing as "period of annexation", try to argue with Malksoo, I am just a messenger. (Igny (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

Igny, Mälksoo isn't a native english speaker. "period of annexation" simply isn't a common idiom in the English language[7]. --Martin (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

AS a native English speaker, you should have known that (a) term occupation appears more often than (b) annexation, and besides the term "occupation" has several different meanings, while "annexation" has only one. So the only thing you proved with your search is that a relatively rare term of annexation is not as common as much more common term of occupation. That is you proved nothing that even slightly supports your idea. (Igny (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

You are right, "annexation" has only one meaning: annexation (law), a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. It is defined as an act, not a period. --Martin (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, whether annexation is an act or a period is a red herring. Last time I checked "occupation and annexation" was a perfectly accepted English phrase. (Igny (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

Really, your googling is meaningless. And still awaiting your vaunted didactic method elsewhere, perhaps that might be a path to constructive dialog. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, what do you have to say about this comparison [8]? (Igny (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

And there was no controversy over the original move, it is only you that lobby for a completely inaccurate title. Whatever "annexation" occurred, it occurred during the initial Soviet occupation. Please provide a preponderance of sources indicating two separate events regarding "annexation." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a controversy. Let me spell out out for you. Martin just came out of 1 year topic ban and without any proper discussion unilaterally moved a page. When I tagged the article and explained why your team edit-warred over deleting the tag. Obviously there was an opposition to Martin's decision, so I have reverted his unilateral move so that he now can follow the proper procedures. (Igny (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

@Igny, It would appear that

1. anything you personally disagree with even in the absence of any sources to support your contentions is "controversial"
2. more than one person who disagrees with you is a "tag team"
3. and more generally, any debate over content is merely another opportunity to attack editors ("just came out of 1 year topic ban").

Please produce the consensus of reputable sources that affirm there were two acts of "annexation" (as viewed by non-Russian, non-Baltic sources so we don't get into useless debates of "joined" legally versus not being a so-called Russian-Baltic POV issue), one in 1940 and another in 1944. That is what the title you advocate for unequivocally indicates. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not about sources, this discussion is about failing proper procedures, and there is nothing really to prove here, the proper procedure was not followed. (Igny (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

I moved the article on December 25th[9], you subsequently edited the article on December 28th[10], 29th[11], 30th[12] and on March 26th[13]. At no time did you object to the move in the five months since the move, so it was not controversial, your edits proved you agreed with it. Only on May 5th did you object. Why? --Martin (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would leave without comment your ridiculous assertion that my edits meant that I agreed with the move. (Igny (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

Considering your penchant for moving articles, I would certainly take your continued activity at an article under a new title to be tacit approval. Your move without a initiating a fresh discussion, particularly considering how long the article title was in place, was wholly inappropriate. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, so, just to be clear, you: ignored editorial courtesy, failed to follow procedure, failed to follow sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Taunting sympathetic to the Soviet and official Russian position

@Igny: Let's dispense with this sort of contribution which can only be designed to inflame conflict: "...Do we have a good chance here to rename the article to "liberation of the Baltic states", what do you think? (Igny (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC))" I can only take this to be intended as an intentional provocation denying Soviet aggression decimating the innocent citizens of the Baltic states.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewhich can only be designed to inflame conflict. When will you stop your personal attacks, I wonder... (Igny (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

I'm only objectively describing your behavior. Regardless of your personal opinions, you are well versed in the history of the period and would know such comments would raise protests from editors who don't believe the USSR liberated any of the Baltic states, having been their initial invader (and as reflected in mainstream sources). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Re I'm only objectively describing your behavior. Me too. Would you please stop your PA? (Igny (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

I might have found the basis for your contention here:

You can also look at the Allied occupation of Europe (with liberation of Europe linked to it). The article insists that the Soviet Union occupied much of Eastern Europe. In my opinion, in any war winners liberate and losers get occupied. Everyone chooses which term applies to them better. (Igny 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

So, the Baltic states were apparently the losers. Once again, I cannot see how you can contend your comment would not be considered to be intentionally provocative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You went into my history of edits and picked one quote out of context, applied your sick interpretation, and used it as an argument to prove that it was me who was being provocative? What did you try to achieve here, to expose my evil nature, to prove that I am not worthy of being a Wikipedia editor? Let me guess, you have a collection of my quotes to back you up in this noble endeavor, right?

Let me break a news to you. That behavior of yours is not only a personal attack but also harassment and trolling. (Igny (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

This from the guy who tries to open an inquiry into the "intent" of an RfC... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What is up with you guys, defending each other even when you are obviously wrong? Was it merely impulsive? A knee-jerk sort of thing? Or there is some strategy involved? I would honestly want to know. (Igny (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

@Igny, I was simply looking to see when you first started commenting on topics having to do with Soviet "occupation" to see if your POV has been consistent over time. As for your vituperative accusatory display, your personal victimology at my hands is imagined at best. Of course, contending the Baltics were "liberated" is provocative whether you agree with that position or not given that position has been completely discredited in reputable scholarship. Do you think otherwise? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And what is the official position?

At the Russia Today web site, Stalin is immediately followed by the Great Patriotic War with no mention of the Soviet invasion of and partition of Poland with Nazi Germany, no mention of the invasion of the Baltic states, et al., skipping right to the German siege of Leningrad.

And where RT does mention the Baltics, for example, in "this day in history", mass deportations were of "anti-Soviet" elements:

On the night of June 13, 1941, the Soviet Union began their first wave of mass deportations of Estonian citizens. Those who were suspected to be involved with “anti-Soviet” organizations, together with their families, were boarded onto trains and exiled to labor camps in Siberia.

Mass deportations of citizens of Baltic Republics began shortly after Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became part of the Soviet Union in August 1940. At a time when Adolf Hitler was invading Europe, special task forces of the Soviet Union arrested and deported those who were suspected of “anti-Soviet” activities and those who were thought to be connected to the “Forest Brothers”, a force organized against the Soviet Union.

Today only Russia maintains it liberated the Baltic states, per this day in history. No mention that the Soviets had invaded the Baltic states prior to Nazi Germany. Actual casualty figures are likely even higher than the 150,000 mentioned, the Red Army took tremendous losses attempting to stamp out the Courland pocket. The 300,000 killed in Latvia also sounds like a holdover from the Soviet era, but I haven't checked that lately. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And, lastly, the rewriting of history to slander Russia, my emphasis:

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of the former Soviet republics reviewed their history, painting Russia as an invader and accusing it of an imperial attitude, and in turn they sought support from the European Union and NATO. Such strong tendencies developed in the Baltic States. Despite the general intention to come to terms with Russia, there are always extremist patriotic forces that do their best to disturb the fragile balance. It was, for the first time, however, that an official with a rank so high had openly taken the side of the extremist wing. Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, the Latvian President in 1999-2007, was known for her extreme antagonism toward Russia and legislation against the Russian-speaking population in Latvia.

However, regardless of the fact that it was during her term of office the first monument to the SS legionnaires was erected, the national Latvian surveys named her the most popular figure in Latvia, referred to by the citizens as ‘Our Vaira’.

Not surprisingly, Vīķe-Freiberga was extremely unpopular with Russians for encouraging a pro-fascist policy in Latvia and her numerous accusations of Russia as a potential Eastern aggressor, “hoping to restore the collapsed empire.”

It's the top match at RT for Latvia and 1940, another day in history here. What was it editors were saying elsewhere about RT being as reliable and independent as CNN? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Hopefully this version is fine, I did remove the seeming harping on occupation and tightened up the text. In any event, it was wartime re-occupation, there is no "personal" like or dislike involved regarding use of the word. If disagreements continue in the absence of sources referenced as to what constitutes mainstream scholarship = NPOV, perhaps we request that 1RR to be applied to the article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with the current lede, and not because it uses the O word, but because it along with the article itself is in overall rather pitiful condition. (Igny (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

Your disagreement is noted. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Title

There is no reason for annexation in the title as that act occurred earlier. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. (Igny (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Even Soviet sources indicate that the Latvian SSR authorities, who were evacuated to the interior of the USSR, were returned to, and in, their former positions, so there was no secondary annexation. Annexation was an act during occupation and occurred only once. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I do not know why someone split an article on Soviet Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states into two article into the pre-Nazi and post-Nazi period, but apparently someone just did that. Are you suggesting to put these pieces back together? In any case this is not a good argument for the rename. (Igny (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Agreed. There is no source existing that suggests that a second annexation occurred in 1944.--Martin Tammsalu (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is the period of continuous Soviet-German-Soviet occupation, consisting of:

1. Soviet occupation and annexation
2. German occupation
3. Soviet re-occupation

I am merely affirming there is no re-annexation, therefore "annexation" needs to come out of the "...(1944)" article title. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. No sources were presented to show there was a secondary annexation. I've moved the article back to its previous title. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus for a merger. Heanor (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Soviet re-occupation of Latvia in 1944 into Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1944). I think the content in Soviet re-occupation of Latvia in 1944 can easily be explained in the context of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1944), and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1944). --Northumber (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, but others must be first notified about this discussion at WikiProject talk pages. --Heanor (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Firstly I am unimpressed by any proposal from a multiple sockpuppet. To the point, this was an important event, which is still relevant today - read any newspaper's or news site's front page on Russia's security concerns. There is a huge amount of information out there in RSs on it. Being both highly notable and abundantly sourced I feel that the topic richly merits a stand alone article. Coming back to the beginning, given the current security situation in Europe, one has to wonder about the sockpuppet's motivations in proposing a down playing of the topic. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose  Independent states have independent histories. I’m opposed to eliminating substantial articles on aspects of them because they “can easily be explained in the context of” their colonial powers. Please read WP:BIAS if you’re not familiar with it. I don’t understand the rationale anyway: why is it desirable to eliminate this article; are we running out of room or something? —Michael Z. 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.