Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Occupation of the Baltic states. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Neutrality

Latest comment: 13 years ago37 comments7 people in discussion

Here is a link to an article about state continuity of the Baltic states. It seems that the matter is unclear and in dispute. Therefore, per neutrality, we should not present either the Baltic or the Russian views as facts, but explain the different positions. Whether 1940-1990 was an occupation or whether the Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union is in dispute. Both views have been taken by different international organizations. TFD (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a matter of Baltic versus Russian opinion. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC

Per your source, court cases clearly uphold the continuity of the Baltic states as the refusal to grant automatic citizenship to Soviet era immigrants from the Soviet Union is not considered a violation of rights, which it would be if the Baltic states were considered successor states. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is whether the Baltic states were occupied by or absorbed into the Soviet Union under public international law. The Baltic states and the Soviet Union (and Russia) took differing views on the matter. TFD (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say, the scholars are too serious people to discuss that b/s. The actual question is whether the Baltic states ceased to exist as a result of Soviet absorption, or their existence was not interrupted. (The mainstream POV is that it wasn't)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD's source pretty much cements "mainstream" is pretty much "any state except Russia"—other than some of the frozen conflict zone breakaways, I can't even say whether Russia has any vassals these days. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note it is the position of official Russia, many independent Russian academics share the same view as Western academics on the issue. --Martin (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Official Russian POV is essentially WP:FRINGE, and should be WP:WEIGHTed accordingly. We have discussed this matter before, I believe. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

When we use the term "mainstream" we are referring to academic and legal opinion, not political opinion of states or academics in the states affected. "The specificity of the Baltic case... illustrates the tension between the rinciples of legality (ex injuria non oritur jus) and effectiveness (ex factis jus oritur)". TFD (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And the conclusion is that ex injuria non oritur jus triumphs over ex factis jus oritur. --20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not always. Case to the point: Georgia failed to prove it was occupied since 1918. (Igny (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

That is true, Georgia failed, the Baltics succeeded. --Martin (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The source, which is neutral, shows that there is no consensus on either interpretation for the Baltic states and in fact both have some degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

More on the Malksoo's conclusion (Igny seems to cite him when he writes about Georgia). Malksoo concludes that the references to some international laws are not always justified, because in the situation when these laws are more frequenly violated than observed (which was the case in XX century), they become a fiction. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please read the article I presented, which discusses the status of the Baltic states under international law. We must present the accepted views and not argue about which Eastern European scholar's view we prefer. TFD (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out that, since the Western countries are (at least now) non-totalitarian, the opinion of the Western scholars is not a monolith. For instance, many of them attribute the Soviet actions in 1939-41 not only to bare expansionism, but also to simple self-defence. For instance, Teddy J. Uldricks (University of North Carolina) notes:

"With the exception of Czechoslovakia, each of these states not only gravitated toward authoritarianism in the 1920s and 1930s but also adopted policies hostile to the USSR. During those years, Soviet military planning documents routinely listed Poland, Rumania, and the Baltic states as likely to attack the Soviet Union. Moreover, as the Kremlin leaders well understood, the populations of these countries (Czechoslovakia again excepted) were not only overwhelmingly anticommunist but in many cases also deeply anti-Russian. Thus the tragic dilemma arose (which Wettig ignores): security for the USSR and genuine freedom for the East Europeans were essentially incompatible." (Icebreaker Redux: The Debate on Stalin's Role in World War II Continues. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 11, Number 3, Summer 2010, pp. 649-660 (Review))

--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

An action may be morally right and legally wrong, and vice versa. TFD (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So a totalitarian state consuming other states is "morally right", then? Hah. I've heard nearly identical arguments from Nazi apologists regarding the invasion of Poland. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Absorption of an authoritarian state (like Lithuania) by a totalitarian state (like the USSR) was no more moral than absorption of a republic (like Hawaii) by a democratic ctate (the USA). The question is different: was the annexation a result of non-provoked Soviet expansionism, or the USSR had serious reasons for that? Of course, it is not an apology. For instance, noone can deny that Hitler had several very serious reasons for invasion of the USSR, although that is not an excuse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I never made any claims regarding the US. I was responding to TFD's insinuation that the occupation was "morally right", which I find risible. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And I made a claim that such an action, as well as most political steps, cannot be considered based on moral criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read the paper that you presented and it states that Russia is the only country in the world to explicitly reject the legal continiuity of the Baltic states. Shrug. --Martin (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Baltics posed a threat to the USSR? That's an entertaining thought. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they posed, and the British and French refusal to recognise Soviet fears that Germany could invade the USSR using Estonia and Latvia as a bridgehead was a primary reason for the failure of the anti-German triple talk negotiations.--Paul Siebert (talk)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to T. Uldricks, though the source might be mentioned in a proper place. I remember Paul once (2009?) brought up Uldrick's earlier (critical) review of Viktor Suvorov's thesis, which - perhaps rightly harsh in tackling some problems in Suvorov's argumentation - seemed to be quite one-sided, actually aligning with the pre-1990s consensus in Soviet/Russian historiography treating controversy over Stalin's plans 1940/1941, completely ignoring other interpretations more favourable to Suvorov, that I tried to point out, if I remember correctly. MIaceK (woof!) 11:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Although this would be a deviation from the major discussion topic, let me point out that the Uldricks' view on Suvorov are mainstream (if we speak about Anglo-American, not Central European scholars). The Suvorov's works have been criticised and debunked by most English and American scholars (others, except Raack, simply ignore him).--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the discussion in the section above regarding Soviet aggression and the timing of Barbarossa actually almost mirrors some of what Rezun/Suvorov writes about, so perhaps he's not entirely wrong. But I digress... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As for Soviet military planning, the possible military actions against Finland and the Baltic states were definitely phrased as defensive measures for the event of an aggression by those countries, something very difficult to imagine in reality. As for the population being anti-Russian, I think Uldricks is not correct regarding the situation in interwar Estonia or (esp.) Latvia. I have read that Ulmanis actually summed things up rather pessimistically in 1940, suggesting a Soviet takeover would mean some people would perish, whereas a German occupation would mean the Latvian nation would perish. We shouldn't forget that for many strata in the Balticn states, Germans, not Russians remained the archenemy till 1940. Hence, it would seem unfair to describe the people there as simply anti-Russian: even if they were, this was more of a sentiment of wariness about a Soviet threat (Germany no longer bordering Estonia/Latvia would no longer be a direct threat geographically). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Uldrich doesn't say the population was totally anti-Russian, he says in many cases it was anti-Russian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, and there were anti-German or (in the case of Lithuania) many anti-Polish elements, too. My point here would be that there was nothing that would've made the three countries inherently (largely) anti-Russian. Also, as far as the end of the quote is concerned - Thus the tragic dilemma arose (which Wettig ignores): security for the USSR and genuine freedom for the East Europeans were essentially incompatible I'm afraid the author is as close as we can get to falling to the once tempting trap of rationalizing Stalin's aggressive undertakings as defensive measures. This kind of argumentation used to be common perhaps 20 years ago, but no longer is in the Western scholarship I think. Today, more and more authors emphasize that most of the so-called dilemmas of security were created by Stalin's very policies, not vice versa. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Haslam, Carley, Roberts, Gorodetsky and other scholars are pre-1990s scholars. They represent a present days opinion, and this opinion seems to be mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it must have been a recent (Estonian) review of Norman Davis's book that encouraged me to think that the Stalin apologist trend has been steadily losing ground in the Western scholarship, too. But I'm afraid we are straying into other topics here, too.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no Stalin apology in the works of the scholars listed by me. The difference between them as the writings of Davis and similar writers is that they (i) do not represent Soviet leadership as some monolith; (ii) try to take into account as many archival data as possible (not only those that demonstrate diabolic nature of Stalin); (iii) do not present Stalin as some infernal monster, instead of that they try to outline rational motives behind his actions. I do not think it is an apology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether Stalin's motives were rational is a matter for debate. Konstantin Khudoley states there was no real military or economic benefit:

"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."

--Martin (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Even rational motives (i.e. those derived from the logical analysis of the situation) can lead to wrong decisions, and some irrational motives (nationalism, phobia, etc) may accidentally lead to correct steps. Therefore, your example does not demonstrate your point. In any event, Soviet (not only Stalin's) motives could be rational or not, however, it is absolutely incorrect (and non-polite) to call those who tries to find the rational motives "apologists".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you miss the point that nothing about an alleged perceived need for a buffer of territory (as opposed to it being a mere pretense for subjugation) justifies murder and deportation of hundreds of thousands of nationals of other sovereign states. If you artificially separate motive from method you become a de facto apologist. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(out) I presented the book,From Soviet republics to EU member states: a legal and political assessment of the Baltic states' accession to the EU by Peter Van Elsuwege (Brill Publishers).[1] The book reviews the various standpoints and explains the degree of acceptance of each one. The author conducted part of his studies at universities in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It makes more sense to use this book as a source than to argue over which interpretation of history we prefer. Does anyone question it as a reliable source? TFD (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have to read more on his treatment of ex factis jus oritur," the book being based on Van Elsuwege's doctoral thesis. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

A couple of weeks have gone by with no further activity. I am hab/hatting the rename discussion (if I remember how to do that) and removing the renaming template. I would suggest we now discuss what is it, specifically, in the article which is "POV" which merits the tag. Based on a small modicum of success, I think it was with Igny, I would suggest that instead of stating something general involving interpretations of sections of content that we limit discussion to at most several sentences at a time so that only ONE point of dispute is under discussion at any time. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agreed that the title should stay, and, taking into account all arguments and sources presented during this valuable discussion, I plan to modify the article to make clear that, despite the title, we cannot speak about pure occupation during the whole period of 1940-90.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree your plan is in the spirit of all relevant arguments presented here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to all as well. The dialog we had was, in the end, a bit more informative than others on the same issues. I do want to remind everyone that the scope of the article is:

the period of three contiguous occupations by two foreign powers with regard to the manifestations of those occupations

and that we should discuss changes prior to making them. With respect to the Soviet era, there may be content which is better suited for the articles on state continuity or the respective Baltic SSRs. And, once again to my request above, let's stick to ONE point at time so we can discuss specific perceived deficiencies in content and remedies in a focused manner. Let's avoid debates on whose view is the more "mainstream." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you meant by what is it, specifically, in the article which is "POV" which merits the tag. It is almost as if you have just arrived and never participated in any discussion earlier. While there was no clear consensus to rename the article, it is as clear that the tag should stay. Could you be more specific with regard to what part of the earlier discussions you need to repeat? (Igny (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Igny, since a discussion about neutrality became dormant, the tag can be removed. If you want to re-insert it, please, renew a dispute over some concrete neutrality issue. However, I recommend you to try to fix it by yourself first, and to re-add the tag only if the BRD cycle will lead to an impasse. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"discussion about neutrality became dormant" =/= "POV issue was fixed". Nowhere in WP:NPOV they say I need to restart the dormant discussion every so often for the tag to stay. Tag can only be removed after the dispute was resolved, and as I understand the policy, stonewalling and vetoing were never a part of dispute resolution. If they were, consider this comment as my veto to remove the tag. (Igny (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

I have to agree with Paul, it would be more constructive if you could at least articulate the issues that you see with the article. Consider using section level and inline tags so that we can focus in on the specific issue. Placing global tags and claiming veto without restating the particular issues of concern to you is not helpful. --Martin (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Below is the explanation of how to use this template (taken from Template:POV)

Template usage notes

Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.

The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.
The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

I also do not think the article is fully neutral, however, we all must concede that the discussion over its neutrality is dormant. Therefore, I remove this tag. Let's try to focus on concrete changes, and, if we will come to an impasse the tag may be restored. However, I see no reason for the tag to be here now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate closure

I am going to undo both the tag removal and the hatting as they are clear violations of WP:RM/CI. On such a contentious issue as this, we must follow protocol to a T. I shall request an admin to give this a legitimate closure. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be too formal. Since all participants agree that the discussion is dormant during last two weeks, this closure is just a formality.:-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Formality is needed in such a hostile environment as this. While I do not disagree with the attempted closure, it was highly improper and could pose problems down the road. I can envision accusations of debate-manipulation surfacing in the future, when tempers become inflamed once again. Plus, hatting a requested move discussion does not actually close it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't believe my closure violates WP:RM/CI as two weeks had passed (well beyond the suggested one week discussion period) since our exchanges ended on not pursuing a rename further. It appeared appropriate for us to move on to any issues editors had around specific content. Closures by non-admins are permitted. If you prefer to handle more formally, that is fine, of course. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, the #1 summary point of the closing instructions says : "Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey". You must admit that you were an active participant. Also, "non-administrators should restrict themselves to: Unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days); Where there is no contentious debate among participants". The discussion was not unanimous and was subject to contentious debate (as is everything on this page).

I have made a request at WP:AN for a legitimate closure. Also, I'd like to make it clear that I regard your closure as improper, but in 100% good faith. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Few questions about the "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar"

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

I am sorry for asking a stupid question, but I cannot find this article in the "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar". The articles listed in this sidebar seem to more or less completely cover a whole period of the Baltic history from late 1920s till 1990s. This article is claimed to be a part of this series, however, it is not clear for me why it is not listed there and what is its role?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the reason for that inadequacy was that the template was a result of efforts of a neutral editor to push the sidebar away from merely whining about how the Baltic states are backward because they were occupied for 50 years to how the Baltic states were progressive in their fight for independence. (Igny (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Mind your tongue. Please at least attempt to demonstrate a facsimile of civility. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me ask again: can anyone explain what role this article plays in the "Occupation..." family? Before I'll start to edit this and sister articles I am genuinely interested to know the overall structure, because, as the sidebar implies, the structure seems to be rather clear and self-consistent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The sidebar has been an area of contention as well and could do with a bit of nested structure. In the meantime, the mainstream view (apologies in advance for using "mainstream", but it is true) is occupied for the duration of Soviet+Nazi+Soviet presence, this article being the parent dealing with acts against the sovereignties and nationals of the Baltic states by the foreign powers in question during the period in question. (Whether there are "unique" aspects to the second Soviet occupation is a separate item.) I hope to clarify the "role" part when I propose an improved template structure, which I believe requires a hierarchy--I'll do that at template talk when I have a proposed hierarchy ready and also post a note here as an FYI. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is close to how I understood this. In connection to that, I think the statement in the sidebar that this article is a "part of" is a little bit confusing: it is supposed to be in, but it isn't. I personally am satisfied with the structure of this "nest", and I will try to preserve this structure during my future work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The history of the sidebar is related to the history of this article. This article was split into a number of sub-articles, this article remained as the overview article and the sidebar was created as a navigation aid between this article and the constituent sub-articles. At the time the side bar article was created, it was anticipated that this overview article would be renamed to "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states" hence the sidebar was called "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar". However that rename failed (that move discussion was held in 2010) and now the sidebar has an anomalous name. I suggest that the template now be renamed to "Occupation of the Baltic states sidebar" to align it with this overview article. --Martin (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See here. (Igny (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Whereas I have no objection against the current article's title, I don't think the sidebar should be renamed. In addition, if this article is a summary of the whole nest of other articles (which seems to be a good idea), it should be modified accordingly. Concretely, the lede is supposed to describe not a single event ("The occupation of the Baltic states was ..."), but a series of different events (for instance "During the period from 1940 to 1991 the Baltic states were ..."). WP:LEDE says: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." That is exactly what we have here: the article describes a period of history of the Baltic states, not a single phenomenon, so the title does not need to appear verbatim in the first sentence. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As you recall Paul, this article was getting rather large and so it was decided to split it into sub-articles[2]: Background of the occupation and annexation of the Baltic states, Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940), Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany, Occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1944), Baltic states under Soviet rule (1944–1991), State continuity of the Baltic states. Per WP:SUMMARY this parent article remains the summary article and the sidebar is a navigation template to tie all the sub-articles that were split from this. Therefore I think there needs to be a link back to this article within the title of the side bar template so people can easily navigate between them. --Martin (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It was split not just because it grew large, but more importantly it became a SYNTH mixture of several topics. In fact, it still is both SYNTH and POV. The sidebar in my opinion should cover more fundamental topic, such as History of the Baltic fighting for independence, and this article should be a small daughter of that topic. (Igny (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

At the first glance, the split seems reasonable. I tried to introduce the link to this article into the sidebar, however, if you know a better way, feel free to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The link back to this article should directly use this article name, not via a piped link, since per WP:PIPELINK piped links should only be used if "the wording of the exact link title does not fit in context", which it clearly does. Per WP:NAVBOX "The link to the page on which a particular instance of a navbox appears should be displayed in black, bold type, not as a link. This will happen automatically, provided all links go directly to their target pages, avoiding redirects". It doesn't seem reasonable to accept the title of this summary article, but then to pipe the Navbox link through an alternate summary title name. --Martin (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you finally start to realize the problem. A simple rename of this article would fix all your concerns.(Igny (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

I was addressing my comment to Paul, since he asked if I knew a better way. I replied there was based upon Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. It seems apparent that you do not accept that there is no consensus for a name change to this article, Paul accepts this, but your vetoing of the alignment of the link name to this summary article name appears to be becoming disruptive. --Martin (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the section below, the dispute over the title may be resumed, although that would be not what I want to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I can't believe you are allowing Igny's WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to to sway you, do you really think going around in circles will be of benefit? I note that you haven't offered any counter argument on why we should ignore WP:PIPELINK and WP:NAVBOX. --Martin (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it may be a bit confusing. But there was no consensus to rename the sidebar, your controversial rename with subsequent salting of the redirect in order to thwart moving back was against WP policies. Absence of consensus to move for this article (the discussion was not even closed by an admin yet) is irrelevant to that particular template as it covers a broader picture than this "summary article". Use of the alignment of the link as a pretext for a template rename is also in a violation of the due process. Assigning summary articles to templates is apparently beyond your expertise. (Igny (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

Re Paul accepts this. That is a blatant lie. (Igny (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

Igny, please don't make unfounded accusations, it is uncivil. It is not a lie, Paul states just above "Whereas I have no objection against the current article's title..." and elsewhere he states "During the discussion about renaming I realised that some ununvolved users whose opinion I respect did not see any serious problem with this title, however, they expressed some concern about the article's content. In connection to that, I propose to leave "Occupation of ..."as an umbrella term". --Martin (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, when I decided to agree with the present article's title, I didn't think that will be interpreted so broadly. Nevertheless, I see no problem with your attempt to rename the sidebar: you changed, you have been reverted, the discussion started - all of that is just a normal BRD. My previous post had a relation to what is being discussed in the next section. In connection to that, I do not want to waste my time in fruitless disputes over the titles (we can return to them later), and suggest everyone to focus on the content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

POV issues

Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

The POV-title was removed, but I fail to see how the issue was fixed. Do I understand it correctly that there is going to be a genuine effort to fix the POV issue? Are there some concrete proposals which I failed to notice? Removal of the tags is not fixing the underlying issues, you know. (Igny (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

According to the rules, if the discussion is dormant the tag can be removed (what I have done). If you believe that the article has POV issues, try to fix them, and only if these attempts will face a persistent opposition the tag should be restored. However, I have a feeling that the POV issues can be fixed without it. In any event, we have at least to try...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:try to fix them. Are you suggesting I can just go ahead and rename the article? I still can not see how I can fix the POV-title issue short of renaming the article. (Igny (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

I agree with Paul, let's start from a clean slate and attempt to fix the issues in good faith without having to resort to article level POV tags, they only cause confusion and people end up getting entrenched in their respective positions (that said, section level and inline tags are okay). Let's deal with one issue at a time in an orderly fashion. I invite Igny to list the issues he sees in point form. --Martin (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:I invite Igny to list the issues he sees in point form.

There is no mention of "annexation" in the title
There is no mention of "annexation" in the title
There is no mention of "annexation" in the title

I hope I made this clear. (Igny (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

I see the issue in a different way. During the discussion about renaming I realised that some ununvolved users whose opinion I respect did not see any serious problem with this title, however, they expressed some concern about the article's content. In connection to that, I propose to leave "Occupation of ..." as an umbrella term, and start to work no the article proper. For instance, as I already noted (my post, 13:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)), the lede is misleading, because it describes the occupation as a single event/phenomenon, and puts the accents incorrectly. However, since the lede is supposed to reflect what the article says, and the article itself is just a summary of several daughter articles, I suggest to modify the daughter articles, then this articles, then the lede, and only after that we can renew a dispute over the title (if that will be needed).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have something concrete in mind, I would like to see it implemented. Whatever it is, I am sure it is going to be better then the current situation. Let me know if you need my help. (Igny (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

@Paul, the lede is not "misleading," it concisely and appropriately describes the continuous period of occupation under three contiguous occupations. Please provide specifics on what is incorrectly being "accented." As for uninvolved editors (generic) deserving a badge of respect, let us recall that in the past in these conflicts the uninvolved have been uninformed patsies for editors seeking to control conflict through arbitration. And your "others have expressed concern" means what, exactly? I asked you to take one specific point at a time and here you are pontificating that objective uninvolved editors, whoever they are, see the same problems you do, whatever those are.

@Igny, please do better than repeating yourself. I already responded to why "annexation" is inappropriate to the title here as it is about the actions of both the USSR and Germany. I have not gone around objecting to "annexation" in the "1940" titles, where one can make the argument it belongs as those articles focus on the Soviet Union's actions. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Peters, I will provide everything what is needed, however, as I already wrote, I prefer to do that in a proper way: by editing the relevant articles, modifying the summary article (this one), and only then I plan to do anything with the lede to bring it in accordance with what the article says. As for uninvolved editors, did you noticed that I wrote "some uninvolved users whose opinion I respect", not "some ununvolved users, whose opinion I respect". The absence of the comma implies that this my statement was not generic, because, as you correctly noted, the "uninvolved" sometimes means "uninformed". However, in this particular case, it was not true, and I meant quite concrete users whom I genuinely respect. However, if you believe that that was incorrect, and that they were just uninformed, I may withdraw my suggestion to stop the renaming discussion, because it was the opinion of these users which tipped the balance in favour of the present title. Again, if you believe they are just uninformed, let's resume the dispute over renaming. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba, you can do better than not paying attention when it is required. I have already addressed your point about German and Soviet occupation in the same article repeatedly. As for an "uninformed patsy", I would not characterize Dr. Malksoo in these terms... (Igny (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

Igny, your reliance solely on Dr. Mälksoo's opinion is contrary to WP:TITLE policy, which instructs us not to rely on a single source, but a whole range of sources when determining an article name per WP:COMMONNAME. I've provided dozens of concrete sources demonstrating common usage, here is another: Alexander Statiev's book published by Cambridge University press titled The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands, which I purchased recently, covers the insurgency from 1944 to 1956, and even he characterises that period as an occupation with a chapter title "Escalation of Unauthorised Violence from the First to the Second Soviet Occupation". --Martin (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, Occupation and annexation... wins by a large margin. As a few examples of many RS in support of the annexation, we could cite usage of the terms by Latvian, American, European officials. (Igny (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

The book actually refers to the Soviets re-occupying territories that were held by the Nazis during the war, not just the Baltic states. Statiev also refers to it as a "liberation mission". TFD (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the source. The escalating violence during the second occupation Statiev refers to occurred between 1944 and 1956, Statiev In fact states during the 1939-1940 occupation the soviets promoted its image as a liberator from the tyranny of capitalists, kulaks and foreign diasporas and at that time the Red Army believed in their liberating mission. Recall that during 1939-1940 the Nazis and Soviets were defacto allies. --Martin (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, Mälksoo writes the Soviet Union "crushed" the Baltics and "occupied" them. The primary focus of this article is the continuity of said crushing and occupying on the part of both the USSR and Nazi Germany. It is purely your personal POV that the occupations do not belong together in one article because they are somehow discontinuous in your POV. The USSR invaded and crushed and occupied the Baltics first, no point in pretending the second time around was any kind of liberation or that the USSR didn't have its military boot up the Baltics' proverbial derrier just as far as the Nazis did. Personal contentions that "mixing" occupations equates the Holocaust with something less evil, et al. are your opinion. Unfortunately, history says continuous occupation (except for the day or two Estonians fought Nazis and the Red Army on two fronts and the Soviets tore down the Estonian flag when they "liberated" Tallinn).

@Paul, I do not believe the scope of this article should include "Life under the SSRs" except for those parts having to do with occupation = acts against the nationals of another sovereign state = e.g., continuing mass deportations. For "Life under the SSRs" it is sufficient to point readers to the appropriate articles.

Again, folks, the only way we will make headway is to discuss specific items, not where the article is "heading," not "read what I wrote before," etc. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "I do not believe the scope of this article should include "Life under the SSRs" except for those parts having to do with occupation = acts against the nationals of another sovereign state = e.g., continuing mass deportations. " That means that you simply do not understand WP policy; it says" "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. ". If you want the article to be focused only on the Soviet crimes against Baltic population and similar events, either the scope or the title of the article should be different: you cannot have a generic title for the article that in actuality discusses just some aspects of the subject. However, as the sidebar suggests, the article is supposed to cover the "Life under the SSRs". However, if you believe it is incorrect, let's discuss what changes do you propose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice too there is nothing about collaboration of citizens with the foreign occupiers. TFD (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul I agree that major view points be treated in this article. As I said elsewhere, after examining the various published viewpoints of the matter, the two major viewpoints are as follows:

The predominant Western view, as shown in the opinions of various governments such as the EU and USA, institutions like the OSCE and PACE, the courts like ICHR, and reflected in both in the media and general and academic books and paper encyclopaedias, is that the Baltic states were occupied and illegally annexed in 1940 into the Soviet Union, which was disrupted by the German occupation in 1941, where upon the Soviet Union re-occupied these countries in 1944, and which remained effectively under occupation for the duration of a subsequent 12 year guerilla war and beyond. This is reflected in the title per WP:TITLE policy.
The alternate view, held by the Russian government and some Russian academics (although not universally in the Russian academic community), is that the Baltic states freely joined the Soviet Union after inviting Soviet troops onto their territory under the terms of their mutual assistance pacts. Thus their position is that the Soviet Union did not occupy and did not annex the Baltic states at all, but since they joined of their own free will they were legitimate constituent republics of the Soviet Union, (similar I suppose to the accession of the Baltic states into the EU and nobody claims the EU annexed the Baltic states!)

This alternate viewpoint is reflected in the title of the Russian-language Wikipedia article: "Accession of the Baltic states to the USSR" (Присоединение Прибалтики к СССР)

However what you are attempting to present is a third unpublished viewpoint which is basically a synthesis of the two published viewpoints mentioned above and unsupported by any English-language source I have seen so far. Your hold that the Soviet Union did occupy and annex these states in 1940, but this annexation was legal and thus these states were subsequently legitimate constituent republics of the Soviet Union. Thus you want to reflect this synthesised view in this articles. That's contrary to policy on so many levels. --Martin (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, editors are ignoring the scope of the article, which describes the sequence of three contiguous occupations by two powers. Quite frankly, I do not see how "Occupation of" suddenly equals a more general "Life under the Soviets then Nazis then Soviets" article and then complaining that the "Occupation of..." article is under-scoped and mis-titled. We already have SSR articles for the Soviet Union, perhaps the answer is to add Ostland articles as well. Those articles are not this article. No one has yet pointed to one specific content statement requiring some sort of correction within the specific scope of this article. Stop trying to change the scope and then arguing the article is all wrong. Someone nominate a sentence you think is wrong and let's discuss it. What is the difficulty here? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the sidebar, there is the larger problem of needless bifurcation of content in some cases violating BOTH Baltic/Western and Soviet/Russian accounts of events, creating more confusion than clarity, IMHO, of course. As I've indicated, I'll look to propose a sidebar that's a bit more structured. That may also include rearranging some of the current article content, we'll see. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

@TFD and "I notice too there is nothing about collaboration of citizens with the foreign occupiers." Do you mean adding material on collaborators with the Soviets? Certainly folks like Lācis, who signed orders deporting (his own) Latvian nationals to the territory of a foreign power deserves mention. The Nazi Holocaust and collaborators are already mentioned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lācis is not mentioned and there is very little about Nazi collaborators. Considering there was collaboration even in Norway, France and Holland, this is a strange omission. TFD (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep insisting Nazi collaboration is ommitted. It's not. There are articles to be pointed to which cover the Holocaust in far more detail. We're not here to POV FORK. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Someone nominate a sentence you think is wrong and let's discuss it. . There is no other way to nominate the title and the scope for the discussion other than the POV-title tag. So here we are discussing the title as well as the scope. (Igny (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

As long as you keep insisting the whole thing is crap, you will get exactly nowhere because you have offered nothing specific to discuss. Surely if the whole thing is crap then you can pick out a sentence or two representative of the crap you complain about. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough.

Latest comment: 13 years ago77 comments13 people in discussion

It is becoming clear that we are – once again – deadlocked. I have no reason to believe that either side is willing to give up any ground at this juncture, and I believe that this debate will continue to rage ad infinitum unless something is done about it. Therefore, I am filing a move request for this page. I know that the "usual gang of idiots" on this page (myself included) will vote and argue as per the usual in this request, but I implore us to allow uninvolved editors to weigh in before reaching a final decision. I also request that no snide inquiries be made regarding the imagined "intent" of this request, as these will be considered gross assumptions of bad faith and shall be summarily reported to WP:ANI (as the last one should have been).

So without further ado...

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clearly, no consensus has been achieved here. While I do note some amount of national partisan-inspired bickering here, all told, the argument seems to come down to a question of whether "occupation" is the most commonly used English term and, if it is, if this is a case where its commonality can trump the negativity of the term. And this is what the participants didn't agree on. Therefore, I'm calling this a no consensus situation, defaulting to status quo. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states → Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states — Per lengthy discussions above and in the talk archives (especially Archive 9), this title has been presented as the most appropriate and precise title for the timeline of events described in this article. Please familiarise yourself with the points made in these discussions before voting; also, bullet your votes so they are easier to keep track of. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support per prof. Mälksoo's opinion. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The Baltic states were occupied, any "annexation" was hardly legal. Tentontunic (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose As the article pertains to the continuous occupation of the the Baltic states under Soviet and Nazi regimes. We already have an article on the Soviet occupation and annexation (1940), appropriately reflecting prof. Mälksoo's finer points. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Tentontunic. This argument has already been addressed during the renaming discussion. Many scholars, including those who make a stress on illegality of annexation nevertheless use this term very frequently because "occupation" alone is not fully adequate term in this concrete case.

@ PЄTЄRS J V. By writing "the article pertains to the continuous occupation of the the Baltic states under Soviet and Nazi regimes" you explicitly equate Nazi and Soviet regimes. Since this is just one of existing POVs, by writing that you explicitly recognise that the title is POV charged. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, stop with the "equating" crap. You EXPLICITLY put words in my mouth. It is "POV charged" only because YOU insist that I am doing something I am not, you are the POV instigator here.

USSR invaded and occupied, directly followed by...
Nazi Germany invaded and occupied, directly followed by...
USSR re-invaded and occupied, if they were interested in "liberating" they would not have torn down the Estonian flag

Don't suggest I'm "equating" anything again. It's just too bad the USSR invaded first, if they hadn't, they could have painted themselves as liberating the Baltics from the Nazis instead of merely re-instituting their own regime of terror. History is what it is. "Juxtaposition" is not "equating", it is a simple matter of chronology. That it is inconvenient is not of my doing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it put nothing in your mouth but your own words. It was not me who wrote "the article pertains to the continuous occupation of the the Baltic states under Soviet and Nazi regimes." (emphasis is yours) By writing that you explicitly stated that Soviet and Nazi regimes were essentially identical, and the title should reflect that (btw, this issue also has been addressed during the discussion). Therefore, if my posts are "crap", they are just an adequate response on your posts.

Re "USSR invaded and occupied..." Not correct. The Soviet actions can be better characterised as intervention, not invasion, and the difference between the Soviet and German actions was quite significant.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my "tweak" above. Juxtaposing things which are chronologically sequential is simply describing the facts of the situation. No one is comparing regimes other than their invading and occupying. "Intervention?" Don't make me laugh. Who is showing their POV now? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, then let's forget about this incident.

Re your ""Intervention?" Don't make me laugh. Who is showing their POV now?", the most recent author who shares this POV is Lauri Malksoo. Do you think he is a minority or fringe source?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather odd your contention, his latest monograph on the Kononov case states: "Latvia had been crushed by the USSR, and the population had already suffered from Soviet arrests, shootings, and mass deportations when the German occupiers arrived." and goes on to refer to the Soviet occupation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support per numerous arguments that have been put forward during the above discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support per Malksoo and Paul.(Igny (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
Support The title seems more neutral. TFD (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME Wikipedia uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. WP:TITLE policy states that in determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias and scientific journals, and a search engine may help to collect this data. In other words the policy directs us not to confine ourselves to the work of a single author (in this case Prof. Mälksoo's opinion), which the proponents of this name change are asking us to do. Some have claimed the current title is "POV charged", but the policy WP:POVTITLE states: "When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors"

The proposal to add the term "annexation" is based upon the mistaken idea that the term "annexation" can be applied to a span of time, but in actual fact the common usage of the term is to denote the event that occurred in 1940. We already have an article that discusses the annexation, being the article Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). On the other hand, this current article is an overview article about a period that spans a number of years that includes periods of Soviet and German occupation. This is supported by multiple sources, for a summary example:

"The Soviet occupation and annexation of 1940-41, the German occupation of 1941-44, and the Soviet reoccupation of 1944" p421 Historical dictionary of Estonia By Toivo Miljan [3]
"There were three successive periods of occupation: the first Soviet occupation, 1940-1; the Nazi occupation from 1941 to 1944-5; and the second Soviet occupation starting in 1944." p85 The Oxford companion to World War II edited by Ian Dear, Michael Richard Daniell Foot[4]
"During 1941 to 1944 the Baltic countries were under German occupation and subsequently in 1944 and 1945 the second Soviet occupation began which lasted for close to 50 years." Childbearing trends and prospects in low-fertility countries: a cohort analysis By Tomaš Frejka, Jean-Paul Sardon, Alain Confesson [5]
"as the independence period was disrupted by soviet occupation (1940), German occupation (1941-1945) and another Soviet occupation (1945-1991)" Language for special purposes: perspectives for the new millennium, Volume 1 edited by Felix Mayer [6]

The following sampling of a wide selection of sources confirm the common usage of the term "occupation" in reference to a span of time:

"At the same time, underground movements fighting against German occupation emerged in all three Baltic states. These partisan groups were later to form the core of the guerrilla movements which fought against the Soviet occupation forces in the postwar years" p33 ‪The Baltic states after independence‬ By Ole Nørgaard
"Many aspects of daily life in Latvia still show the effects of the Soviet occupation from 1944 through 1991" p1084 World and Its Peoples Volume 8 of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland [7]
"Soviet occupation included the control of the socio-economic system, the implementation of Soviet institutions and the deportation of Estonians, set against the fostering of Russian-speaking immigration to the Republic. As a result, significant demographic changes took place in the region between 1939 and 1989. During the occupation period, the percentage of ethnic Estonians in the total population resident in Estonia dropped from 88% to 61%" Conflict and security in the former Soviet Union: the role of the OSCE By Maria Raquel Freire[8]
"Mr. Speaker, in 1991, after more than 50 years of Soviet occupation, the nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, acting peacefully, but with great courage, regained their freedom." Congressional Record, V. 144, Pt. 17, October 7, 1998 to October 9, 1998[9]
"In almost 50 years of Soviet occupation, all three countries were subjected to the full force of ideologic, political and economic policies as republics within the Soviet Union" Latvia By Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Centre for Co-operation with Non-members [10]
"In 1991 after 50 years of Soviet occupation, Latvia regained its independence." p81 Eastern European theater after the iron curtain, Kalina Stefanova, Ann Waugh [11]
"Latvia remained under Soviet occupation for forty years. Its independent statehood, however, was never legally extinguished. … the Latvian Supreme Council declared the 1940 annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union illegal. … Under the Latvian-Russian agreements on army withdrawal, the last Russian troops left Latvia on August 31, 1994, thus formally bringing Soviet military occupation to an end." p146 Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization: yearbook, Mary Kate Simmons, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers[12]
"Lithuania came under Soviet occupation in 1940 after being autonomous since 1918 . It remained under oppressive occupation for more than 50 years. Soviet occupation was interrupted for several years (1941-1944), replaced by a different oppressive, occupying force, the Nazis" Advocating for children and families in an emerging democracy edited by Judy W. Kugelmass, Dennis J. Ritchie [13]
"As the 50 years of occupation changed from overt repression to political, cultural and ideological control and the desire by the Soviet Union to create an atomised homo sovieticus, denying national or other cultural identity," Language Planning and Policy in Europe: The Baltic States, Ireland and Italy edited by Robert B. Kaplan, Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. [14]
"the USSR entered Latvia on 17 June 1940 and occupied the country for more than 50 years" Constitutional law of 10 EU member states: the 2004 enlargement, C. A. J. M. Kortmann, J. W. A. Fleuren, Wim Voermans, [15]
"One of the major reasons is that in 50 years of Soviet occupation, the state of Latvia and constitutionalism could exist only in the imagination of the people." Encyclopedia of World Constitutions By Gerhard Robbers [16]
"Secondly, the chapter lays out the attempt of the newly restored states to create a foreign policy 'from scratch', following fifty years of occupation. Why did the Baltic States seek to integrate into the Western political and security ..." Continuity and change in the Baltic Sea Region: comparing foreign policies By David J. Galbreath, Ainius Lašas, Jeremy W. Lamoreaux [17]
"Fifty years of occupation have caused heavy ecological damage, both through military presence and activities as well ..." Remembering the Future: The Challenge of the Churches in Europe Robert C. Lodwick
"In the meantime, the Baltics' natural resources were pushed to their limits. Lithuanians had always been proud of how well they tended their land, how much they made it produce. But under Soviet occupation, Baltic farmers used so much fertiliser that the land started falling apart" Baltic Pride, Russian Tears Page 22 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Vol. 50, No. 5 [18]

As mentioned before, the proposal to add the term "annexation" is based upon the mistaken idea that the term "annexation" can be applied to a span of time, but in actual fact the common usage of the term is to denote the event that occurred in 1940. The term "occupation" can denote either an event and a period. The following Google counts give an indicative view of the common usage in the literature:

Terms' usage as a period or duration:

"during the soviet annexation" +baltic 6 hits
"during the soviet occupation" baltic 521 hits

"period of soviet annexation" baltic 9 hits
"period of soviet occupation" baltic 173 hits

"years of annexation" baltic 11 hits
"years of occupation" baltic 425 hits

"years of soviet annexation" baltic 8 hits
"years of soviet occupation" baltic 377 hits

Terms' usage as an event or act

"act of annexation" baltic 46 hits
"act of occupation" baltic 7 hits

"annexation in 1940" baltic 640 hits
"occupation in 1940" baltic 372 hits

"after annexation" baltic 185 hits
"after occupation" baltic 138 hits

"before annexation" baltic 69 hits
"before occupation" baltic 47 hits

To exemplify that term "annexation" predominately refers to the event in 1940:

"annexation in 1944" baltic" 5 hits
"occupation in 1944" baltic 97 hits

--Martin (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Firstly, I would like to see not google results (google searches within all sources, not only scholarly ones), but Gscholar results. In addition, taking into account the vast amount of literature devoted to this complex and confusing issue, I see no problem to fins a dozen of sources illustrating any POV.

You are asking us to breach policy when asking us to confine our sources to only scholarly sources. WP:TITLE is clear, usage by major international organizations, major English-language media outlets and quality encyclopedias are also to be considered. --Martin (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, there are several flaws in Martin's arguments which they overlooked:

"Annexation" in 1940 is used more frequently because these states were annexed peacefully (of course, I am talking about a formal side only), although the USSR threatened to use military force. Therefore, the use of "annexation", or "incorporation" is quite natural.
"Occupation" in 1944 is more relevant because the USSR did occupy this territory militarily as a result of long and bloody battle against Nazi troops aided by a large amount of Baltic nationals. It is incorrect to speak about annexation in this case, because the USSR already considered this territory its own (therefore it saw no need to annex the same land twice), and the western countries didn't want to return to this issue twice.
"Years of annexation" is awkward English, therefore, it is natural that it is found not frequently. When the territory is annexed it remains annexed, so the source prefer to speak about a period when these states remained to be annexed, not about a "period of annexation". Nevertheless, the fact is that many, if not majority sources state that these states were annexed, and by that they imply that it was not a classical occupation.

The latter fact must be reflected in the title. If Martin has some ideas about alternative titles that would adequately reflect this fact I am ready to discuss it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I regret your characterization of bloody battles against Nazis "aided by a large amount of Baltic nationals." While it is true that the Courland pocket held out to the very end of the war, the Latvian units combating the Red Army were not doing so to "aid" the Nazis. And, given the brutality of the first Soviet occupation, I hardly see where you can describe it as "peaceful." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Peters, I meant mostly the Battle of Narva, which dwarfed many glorious battles fought in Western Europe and Pacific. During this battle Estonian conscripts, who were conscripted semi-voluntarily (part of them could evade conscription, however they preferred not to do so), were bravely defending the territory of Estonia, inflicting significant casualties on the Red Army. By coincidence, they were also defending the Third Reich, which, I believe, was not their genuine intention. I admit the primary goal of Latvian units (others than Arajs Kommando and similar units) also was just independence, however, the fact that they objectively helped to prolong the Third Reich's resistance is hard to deny. We must discriminate the intentions from the results, because, for instance, the intentions of early Bolsheviks were quite noble.

Regarding "peaceful" annexation, it this concrete case I mean the event. The Baltic states were annexed peacefully, because that had been achieved without using military force. Of course, the USSR threatened to use force, and such a scenario could not be ruled out. However, since military force (except, probably, naval blockade) had not been used, the annexation is considered "peaceful". By writing that I by no means imply that subsequent actions of Stalin's authorities were not brutal. Ironically, there was not much difference between these actions and the Soviet policy towards its own population during "peaceful" 1930s: it was just collectivisation + Great Purge combined together.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterisation. Ineta Ziemele writes on page 25 of her book "State continuity and Nationality":

"Immediately after the restoration of the Soviet occupation in the territories of the Baltic States in 1944 the war of so-called national partisans began involving, according to some estimates, 10,000 partisans in Estonia, 10,000 partisans in Latvia and 30,000 partisans in Lithuania and many supporters in all three countries. This war continued in a more-or-less organised form until 1956 when other forms of resistance were found in view of the obvious superiority of the Soviet military and intelligence forces. Estimates concerning the extent of partisan movement differ but there seems to be a consensus among researchers that by international standards, the Baltic guerrilla movements were extensive. Proportionally, the partisan movement in the post-war Baltic states was of the size as the Viet Cong movement in South Vietnam"

In fact a book has been written on this very topic called The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands By Alexander Statiev [19]. --Martin (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support per Malksoo and Paul, and per WP:NPOV. It is always better to have more neutral title which reflects more global view. In this case we have a significant difference between the views on the matter, found in many Western and Baltic publications, on one hand, and in old Soviet and modern Russian ones, on the other hand. If we can combine them in one title, that's good (not forgetting, that in fact there is an old Soviet point of view that Baltic states joined the USSR, and were not "annexed", and this view basically was supported, or was not opposed, by many countries in the world). Also, I should say that if we have a de-facto annexation, the question whether it was legal or not is vaguely relevant to the title. The word "occupation" in popular view supposes not only military presense, but also harsh military rule, which was not the case with the Baltic states in the later decades of the Soviet rule. That's why just "occupation" in the title is misleading. GreyHood ^Talk 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Not harsh? Really, what part of mass deportations and mass killings is not harsh? There is nothing "misleading" about occupation. If the Soviet military (and let's not forget German military) were not stationed in huge numbers for the duration, that is new to me. "Legal" or "not legal" is not "vaguely" related to the title, that is your personal opinion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  - I have specified, that the situation didn't look like a classic occupation in the later decades of the Soviet rule. The low importance of "Legal" or "not legal" is not only my personal opinion, but a part of common sense. Legally (from the point of view of English law) the King of England was the King of France for the most part of the Late Middle Ages, but this is generally ignored, not because the opposing French claim was legally better, but in the light of the de-facto situation. In this case we also have two different points of view on legality, and it is the best to choose a title which is closer to the de-facto situation. GreyHood ^Talk 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    - What different viewpoints on legality? Your examples of regency point to this being your WP:OR. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      - Examples are just examples, and not OR. Different viewpoints are quite clear here, and I hope there is no need to repeat them once more. GreyHood ^Talk 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        As you say, there is a significant difference between the views found in many Western and Baltic publications, on one hand, and in old Soviet and modern Russian ones on the other. However for the purpose of article titles policy dictates that only English-language sources should be considered. WP:POVTITLE is clear on this point: "When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title. --Martin (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
        The term "occupation" is included into the proposed title and takes the first place, so everything seems OK anyway. Also, I believe that a majority of Engish language sources refers to the Baltic nations between 1945-1991 as Soviet Republics, not the "occupied Baltic states", and this should be taken into account. GreyHood ^Talk 15:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. I'm a big fan of NPOV titles. Looking over the old discussions, I find Paul Siebert's and Professor Mälksoo's arguments convincing. The proposed title seems a good compromise that will end the long-running, time-wasting disputes. Also, since we are fortunate here to have the opinion of a notable expert (Prof. Mälksoo) to guide us, we should take advantage of that and go by the expert's opinion. Nanobear (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The fact is a significant guerilla war existed in the Baltic states for over ten years after the end of WW2. Prof. Konstantin Khudoley writes "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." Prof. Mälksoo points out that "However, not every annexation could legally terminate a regime of occupation. Pursuant to the underlying concept of the Hague Regulations, premature annexations, i.e. annexations carried out durante bello, were considered illegal and without the desired international legal effects." He continues in the chapter titled: "Conclusions: International rules binding the USSR during its occupation (illegal annexation) of the Baltic States":

"Since the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States in 1940 lacked any ground in international law, and a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval of Soviet conquest, the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic States implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such was, as a matter of international law, not terminetated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was reestablished in 1991. Notwithstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title."

In any case, adding the term "annexation" on the basis of the POV of one single academic is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME as discussed above. --Martin (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. A superabundancy of prolixity in the pursuit of supposed perfection in the titling articles is to be eschewed, avoided and discouraged. Shorter is better and occupation is precise enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Angus. If "occupation" is precise enough, does, in your opinion, it adequately describe the fact that the independence of the Baltic states was restored following the legal procedure stipulated by Soviet domestic laws, and many sources describe this act as secession? --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Paul, if independence of the Baltic states was restored following the legal procedure stipulated by Soviet domestic laws, why did Soviet troops kill 14 civilians and injure 700 more at the Vilnius Television Tower in Lithuania and kill a further 6 people in Latvia in January, 1991? --Martin (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what was the difference between these events and similar events in other SSRs (e.g. in Georgia, which was a part of the USSR according to all possible international laws). These events had more common features with the attempted coup d'etat in August 1991, i.e. were illegal actions of central authorities. In other words, whereas the Baltic citizens were acting in accordance with the Soviet laws, the central authorities violated the law.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, which Soviet lawbook proscribed the setting up Citizens' Committees and electing a Citizens' Congress, which led the restoration of independence? --Martin (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Elsuwege, State Continuity...? See page 379. (Igny (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Oppose. Same reason as Angus. I, too, have issues with the current title (or rather, the current article scope given its title), but this proposal won't solve them. To answer Paul's question whether "[occupation] adequately describe[s] the fact that the independence of the Baltic states was restored following the legal procedure stipulated by Soviet domestic laws, and [that] many sources describe this act as secession", I would say that the title of the article does not need to describe at all just any fact about its topic. I would counter-ask whether just plain old "annexation" adequately describes the fact that this annexation is widely regarded as illegal. Or whether annexation is the proper term for the admittance of a republic into a union of like republics. That is what, in fact, tips the scales for me. "Annexation" does not seem like the most accurate descriptor of what happened to the Baltic states during/after WWII, and is liable only to mislead. Srnec (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Martin. Soviet lawbooks are the primary sources, so I would be cautious to interpret them by myself. Therefore, I prefer to rely upon the western scholargy and legal journals. Thus, Cass R. Sunstein, in the article I already cited below (Constitutionalism and Secession. The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, Approaching Democracy: A New Legal Order for Eastern Europe (Spring, 1991), pp. 633-670) states (in the very beginning):

"The Soviet Constitution guarantees a right to secede."

He continues:

"The most highly publicized secession movements have occurred in the Baltic states, and secessionist pressures have placed the future of the Soviet Union in serious doubt. Article 72-guaranteeing a right of secession-has been an important part of the debate. Until recently, however, it provided no firm basis for secession, in part because of the absence of a legal mechanism for its enforcement.56 Unilateral secession movements were said to violate Articles 73 ahd 74, which provide for the supremacy of Soviet law and for So- viet sovereignty.57 In April 1990, however, legislation was enacted to provide for secession through a two-thirds majority in a referen- dum and a five-year transition period."

Note, the author characterises the independence movement as secessionism, and place it in a completely legal plane. Importantly, the author does not draw any distinction between the Baltic and all other Soviet republics. This would be impossible, had the legal status of the Baltic republics been different from that of, e.g. RSFSR, or Ukraine.

Interestingly, the major author's thesis is that:

"My principal claim in this essay is that whether or not secession might be justified as a matter of politics or morality, constitutions ought not to include a right to secede. To place such a right in a founding document would increase the risks of ethnic and factional struggle; reduce the prospects for compromise and deliberation in government; raise dramatically the stakes of day-to-day political decisions; introduce irrelevant and illegitimate considerations into those decisions; create dangers of blackmail, strategic behavior, and exploitation; and, most generally, endanger the prospects for long-term self-governance."

In other words, the author openly claims that the prospective splitof the USSR (the article was written before that) would be a result of the intrinsic flaw of the Soviet constitution. In other words, the Soviet secessionist movement was in absolutely full accordance with Soviet laws, and the Baltic citisens got their independence in full accordance with Soviet constitution, and the independence was proclaimed by the representative organs which were elected democtratically based on the Soviet laws. Obviously, the peoples who elect them acted as Soviet citisens, thereby implicitly assuming that they have the same legal status within the USSR as other Soveit peoples. That would be impossible, had the Baltic states been under military occupation during this time.

This long dispute have had one positive outcome: we collected and consolidated sources and arguments for future work on this article. In addition, the opinion of some uninvolved editors, whom I genuinely respect, forced me to reconsider my position. Therefore, I propose the following:

1. Since uninvolved editors see no big problem with non-precise but short title, I suggest to close this move request and leave the title unchanged.

2. Since other editors also see issues with the article's scope given this title, to modify the article accordingly, thereby making clear that we cannot speak about prolonged occupation in classical sense, that we speak about occupation only in a conext of the state continuity issues, that the Baltic states were de facto the member of the Soviet Union (which has been recognised by majority states), and that they seceded following the legal procedure stipulated by the Soviet laws.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, this author you cite is discussing a prospective split of the USSR, as you say yourself this paper was written before any split, i.e., speculating on events that have not happened yet. You should take Igny's advice and read Elsuwege, State Continuity...:

"Accordingly, the Baltic declarations of independence were considered to be illegal (by the Soviet Union) because they violated the constitution of the Soviet Union. Article 72 of this constitution assigned each union republic a right to secede. According to Moscow, Baltic independence could only be envisaged on the basis of this provision and should therefore be seen as secession rather than solely as the restoration of independence. On 3 April 1990 the USSR Supreme Soviet laid down the modalities for starting the process of secession. The requirement that two-thirds of the permanent residents of a given republic should approve secession by referendum and that final approval remained dependent on the full Soviet parliament after a five-year transition period clearly revealed a strategy for impeding Baltic independence. Vytautas Landsbergis, leader of the Lithuanian Sajudis national movement, immediately replied that this law on secession was ‘invalid’ and ‘had no legal basis in Lithuania’. He once again repeated Lithuania’s claim that ‘the basis for the re-establishment of Lithuania’s independence’ was ‘the de jure continuity of the Lithuanian state’."

In other words the Baltic states declared independence based upon restoration, the Soviet Union declared that was illegal under internal soviet laws and offered an alternate secessionist model based on the Soviet constitution, which was rejected by the respective Baltic citizens' committees, then the Soviets sent in the paratroopers to enforce Soviet law, killing 20 and injuring hundreds of others. You contention that the Baltic states seceeded based on Soviet laws (or those killed and injured contrary to Soviet authority) is totally and utterly misleading. Van Elsuwege concludes:

"More than ten years after the Baltic states re-entered the international arena, discussions on their legal status continue to dominate relations with Russia. The main issue relates to the question whether the Baltic states are new or restored states. 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. Even the Soviet Union accepted the illegality of the secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and declared them to be null and void. Russia, consequently, refuses to accept the notion that the prewar Baltic republics continue to exist. The concept of state continuity constitutes, however, the basis of Baltic internal and external policy, and is mentioned in the constitutions of each Baltic republic. It is the driving force behind the Baltic quest for membership of NATO and the EU, distinguishing the Baltic states from other post-Soviet republics. The EU explicitly acknowledged this point of view when it recognized the re-emergence of independent Baltic republics and invited these countries as candidates for EU membership"

In other words, the main stream view is that the Baltic states were illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union and these states were restored, only Russia rejects this, but the EU explicitly expressed adherence to this main stream view of restoration. --Martin (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments

I propose to think about totally different title as a possible way out of an impasse. Martin seems to look positively at the User:Lihaas's suggestion to name this article "History of ...". If that will help to come to consensus, I am ready to discuss an alternative name, although I am also comfortable with "Occuaption and annexation..."--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got your impression that I seemed to look positively at the User:Lihaas's suggestion, all I did was to recap the result of the RFC saying that of the three uninvolved editors who commented in the RFC, two User:Dailycare [20] and User:Bahudhara [21] both agreed the current title was okay and opposed any move, while User:Lihaas [22] suggested that "History of..." would be more neutral. --Martin (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We've been down this road many times before. "History of.." we already have regarding the USSR as the SSR articles. "History of.." brings in other topics which have nothing to do with occupation. And. quite frankly, were we to rename this as "History of..." that would make this grossly POV content as it would imply the only thing that happened of any note was being occupied. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: burning need to rename. There is so much to improve in this article, and there are people willing to do the improvements (myself included), but under the current POV-title it is just a waste of time to touch it. If you are happy with the status quo which is a gross misrepresentation of an important part of the Baltic history, that does not mean that the WP must stay hostage to your veto. (Igny (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Re: "There is so much to improve in this article ... but under the current POV-title it is just a waste of time to touch it". That's an awfully selfish rationale for not improving the article. One wonders who really is the party holding the article "hostage"... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:That's an awfully selfish rationale for not improving the article.. How is a desire not to waste my time selfish? (Igny (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

You have essentially threatened to not improve the article unless your desired name-change is pushed through. This borders on disruption. Biblical connections aside, it is generally considered insulting to insinuate that other editors are "swine". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Smart people would realize that I did not insinuate anything. Stupid people would not see an insinuation even if it hits them into face. (Igny (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

@Igny, then I suggest you improve an appropriately named article dealing with the initial Soviet occupation and the act of annexation in 1940. This article is something different. Don't try to make it into something it is not. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If there are gross misrepresentations then perhaps we can discuss those. It will certainly be a more stimulating conversation than the endless grinding on about the article name from both sides. There isn't going to be a consensus to change it, it is appropriate to the article regarding a continuous period of three occupations of the Baltic states under two regimes. (Of course there's a day or two here and there where the rightful inhabitants attempted, and failed, to reestablish sovereignty.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about three historical periods in three different countries. Shouldn't it be split into nine separate articles? TFD (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this article has already been split last year and this article is now an overview article. --Martin (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. Under current title this article is POV-ish SYNTHesis. (Igny (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

What about "History of the Baltic States (1940-1989)"? TFD (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are a Russian nationalist with psychological issues pertaining to the collapse of empire the name is not POV. I am curious as to how you perceive it as synth though, please explain. Tentontunic (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic, you have offended several concrete persons. I advise you to cross this your comment and never resort to this type arguments in future. (I am not going to report this incident, it is just an advise.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not start on who has offended whom given your egregious characterization of the Soviet takeover of the Baltic states as "peaceful." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, unless there are in fact "Russian nationalists with psychological issues pertaining to the collapse of empire" here I fail to see how my comment can offend. I can as always back this assertion with a reliable source if needed. Feel free to report it were ever you wish, in my opinion editors with strong nationalistic feelings ought not edit an article such as this. Tentontunic (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is easy to explain. Consider this syllogism. Major premise: "Unless you are a Russian nationalist with psychological issues pertaining to the collapse of empire the name is not POV"; minor premise: "Someone on this talk page has argued that the title is not neutral"; conclusion: "therefore, s/he is a Russian nationalist with psychological issues pertaining to the collapse of empire". I see no other way how your recent posts can be understood. And I don't see how can you back with sources this your assertion. Consequently, I will not be surprised if some of the users offended by you (some of which are not Russians at all) will report your behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

James Smith, David The Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania Routledge. 1st edition. 9 May 2002. ISBN 978-0415285803 page 137. A perfectly acceptable source for stating Russia has issues pertaining to the collapse of empire. Tentontunic (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Russia (as well as most former empires) has issues pertaining to the collapse of empire does not automatically means that this particular title is not POV charged, and, accordingly, that the users who argue that it is are Russian nationalists. If by making that your post you implied that they are, you must withdraw your accusations and apoligise. If you made just a general statement about Russia, I remind you that the talk page is not a general forum on the article's subject, so the statement is hardly relevant and should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you are right that there is no need to report editors with childish arguments, when it is enough to gently chide them. In response why it is SYNTH. Occupation of the Baltic republics (not states) by the Germany is only relevant here because it interrupted the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. In most of the scholarly papers it is discussed as such. There is no source which put these two invasions on the same level as it is done in this article. By combining these two events under the current title, the article implies that these two occupations are the same in terms of the means, scope, duration, impact and consequences, which is a conclusion not present in any source, aka WP:SYNTH. Adding the discussion of the M.R. pact only underlines this SYNTH and adds an implication that the occupation was a result of two allied powers acting together to crush these small nations, while in reality these states were nothing but pawns in a bigger game. Under the new title however it is no longer SYNTH as it is perfectly ok to mention events relevant to the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic states and the German occupation certainly qualifies. (Igny (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

The Nazi and Soviet occupations have been treated together in reliable sources, for example see Chapter Two "The Long Second World War: Estonia under Occupation 1940-91" in Professor Smith's book "The Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania". So there is no basis for your claim of WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when scholars build the case for the state continuity of the Baltic states they treat both occupations together, but we are not discussing the article state continuity of the Baltic states here, and outside the context of the state continuity placing both events into one article under the same title is SYNTH. (Igny (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Except that this particular source does not "build the case for the state continuity of the Baltic states", but juxtapositions the Soviet and German occupations together in the one chapter as a single period which the professor then describes as the "Fifty Years War", attributing Patrick Brogan's book Eastern Europe 1939-1989: The Fifty Years War (London, 1990). I've already pointed to other sources that similarly group these occupations together, so there is no SYNTH here. --Martin (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, Smith used the term "continuity" 41 times in his book. He obviously did not try to establish state continuity there. (Igny (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

...and he used "occupation" 97 times, "occupied" 34 times, and "occupier" 3 times. 134 > 41. Word counts will get you nowhere here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was asked why I think it is SYNTH, and I explained why. I still did not hear good enough arguments to the contrary. (Igny (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Besides, the "50-year war for the Baltic states" was a rather ridiculous assertion clearly outside the scholarly mainstream. (Igny (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

1940-1989 we already have individual articles on the Baltic SSRs. That is totally sufficient. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the need for this article? TFD (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

@TFD: This article is again, a summary dealing with the collective chronological continuity of experience of the Baltic states under three occupations by two invading foreign powers. @Igny: There is nothing regarding the title or content that makes this article "POV" synthesis. Other articles deal with other aspects of that period. @Nanobear: Malksoo's take on "annexation" is therefore irrelevant to the title here, as that deals only with the Soviet aspect of that period (and is reflected appropriately elsewhere in the titling of articles). There is no reason to rename the article as something it is not (implying it is dealing only with the Soviet occupation). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts. I have some thoughts regarding this claim that the title is "POV charged". After examining the various published viewpoints of the matter, I find the following:

The predominant Western view, as shown in the opinions of various governments such as the EU and USA, institutions like the OSCE and PACE, the courts like ICHR, and reflected in both in the media and general and academic books and paper encyclopedias, is that the Baltic states were occupied and illegally annexed in 1940 into the Soviet Union, which was disrupted by the German occupation in 1941, where upon the Soviet Union re-occupied these countries in 1944, and which remained effectively under occupation for the duration of a subsequent 12 year guerilla war and beyond.

This predominant viewpoint is reflected in the title of the English-language Wikipedia article: "Occupation of the Baltic states"

The alternate view, held by the Russian government and many Russian academics (although not universally in the Russian academic community), is that the Baltic states freely joined the Soviet Union after inviting Soviet troops onto their territory under the terms of their mutual assistance pacts. Thus their position is that the Soviet Union did not occupy and did not annex the Baltic states at all, but since they joined of their own free will they were legitimate constituent republics of the Soviet Union, (similar I suppose to the accession of the Baltic states into the EU and nobody claims the EU annexed the Baltic states!)

This alternate viewpoint is reflected in the title of the Russian-language Wikipedia article: "Accession of the Baltic states to the USSR" (Присоединение Прибалтики к СССР)

Thus here we see the correct functioning of WP:TITLE (and presumablably the Russian eqvivalent), relying upon their respective language sources in determining the title.

However we have this third unpublished viewpoint held by a group of Wikipedians which is basically a synthesis of the two published viewpoints mentioned above and unsupported by any English-language source I have seen so far. They hold that the Soviet Union did occupy and annex these states in 1940, but this annexation was legal and thus these states were subsequently legitimate constituent republics of the Soviet Union. Thus they want to reflect this synthesised view in the proposed title Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states. That's contrary to policy on so many levels. --Martin (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts. (Alternative version). The Baltic issue is complex, and there is no uniform terminology to describe the period of the Baltic states' history during which they were under Soviet dominance. Some western sources (an most Baltic sources) describe it with the word "occupation" implying that these states were under Soviet military occupation since 1940 till 1990. Other sources take into account that the USSR took significant steps to absorb these state and to made them full members of the Soviet Union. These sources use the term "annexation", or "incorporation", implying the these state were "annexed", or "incorporated", although this statement is frequently (although not always) is supplemented by the reservation about forceful character of this incorporation. (see, e.g. "The Soviet Union incorporated these states by force in 1940, after they had enjoyed two decades of independence." (Constitutionalism and Secession. Author(s): Cass R. SunsteinSource: The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, Approaching Democracy: ANew Legal Order for Eastern Europe (Spring, 1991), pp. 633-670). Despite the forceful and illegal character of this annexation, these sources consider the Baltic states de facto a part of the USSR and, accordingly, describe the national independence movement as "secessionist" (ibid. see also "... the Baltic States held referenda in early 1991 on whether to seek independence; the overwhelming response was positive, so the Baltic States then waged a successful campaign for full independence." Sean D. Murphy. Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 545-581). Obviously, the sole term "occupation" is insufficient to adequately describe what all sources say about the Baltic issue, and many western sources do not use this term at all when they discuss the period of the Baltic history when these states were de facto Soviet Socialist republics.
Since the sources use mixed language, and no uniform terminology exist, a group of users proposed to add the word "annexation" to the title, which would more adequately reflect what the sources say. These users did not proposed to reflect the Soviet/nationalist Russian POV as minority or fringe.
Therefore, the actual contradiction between two groups of users can be described not in synthesis or pushing some POV, which is not a mainstream. What we have in actuality is the vehement opposition of some users against a simultaneous usage in the title of both major terms that are being used, in parallel or separately, by majority of reliable sources to describe the history of the Baltic states during the period of Soviet dominance, and the persistent adherence of these users to only one of these terms, which, although partially correct, is unable to adequately describe a complete essence of those time events.
I believe that after these my explanations Martin will realise that his recent post is a pure straw man fallacy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I really fail to see why occupation is not in and of itself an appropriate term and title and topic for the situation the Baltic states found themselves in for the contiguous period in question under two foreign powers. There are other topics of note during this period, however they are not for the summary article here. "Vehement opposition"? Really, is that what you now label those with an editorial point of view to yours? We already include annexation where we deal only with the Soviet occupation, e.g., the article on Latvia, so what is your problem here? You (and some others here) simply appear to be using this as yet another forum for arguing that the point can be made that the Soviet presence was somehow not really an "occupation." Finer points do not change the fundamental nature of either the Soviet (initial) nor Nazi (subsequent) nor Soviet (subsequent) invasion and seizure of sovereign Baltic territory. Malksoo uses "crushed" and "occupied" with reference to Soviet actions, that's fine for me—or do you only quote and characterize Malksoo when you can do so in a manner which suits your editorial POV? I've suggested a Soviet legacy task force—perhaps it should be less formal, say, the "Soviet legacy debate club" where we can all debate these sorts of things without someone periodically targeting a random article and us all tirelessly replaying all the same old debate which will continue until official Russia sucks up to admitting the Soviet presence was an occupation. You will note that Russia doesn't attack Lithuania over this (e.g., in its global media outlets such as Novosti state media Russia Today) as its separate treaty recognizes Soviet occupation of Lithuania in every sense except using the actual word itself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 10:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that the Baltic situation is "complex" regarding international law in that:

it set the precedent that forcible incorporation is no longer recognized in international law;
it set the precedent that the length of period of occupation does not change that it is an occupation.

The arguing here that subjugated Baltic nationals enjoyed all the rights and privileges of Soviet citizens (that phrase has been used elsewhere in such debates, here more subtly as the "life and the legal status of the population of the Baltic states did not differ from that of other Soviet citizens") is quite preposterous—that is meaningless as it doesn't include "freedoms." What rights and privileges? Being conscripted into a foreign power's armed forces? Having your property seized and being deported? Really, let's recognize this for what it is and have a debate club instead. (I won't even get to the Baltophobic hate rhetoric just after independence and loss of privileged status of the immigrant Russian population, as in, "next time we'll send them all to Siberia.") PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 10:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments may be correct or not, however, you miss one important point: noone argues that the occupation (during some period) did take place, and noone requests that the word "occupation" should be removed from the title of from the artice. The point is that many sources (large amount of sources) tell about the Baltic states as about the part of the USSR (at least de facto), and some of them do not use the term "occupation" at all. Therefore, the issue is not in which term to use, but in if the word "occupation" alone is adequate enough to describe the period of Soviet dominance. As many users persuasively demonstrated (with sources), it isn't. However, since I do not insist any more on the change of the title, we need to focus on the article's content to compensate for the article's inaccuracy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, again, the article is about the aspect of occupation as it pertains to a continuous span of time regarding the presence of two foreign powers over three contiguous time periods. I certainly welcome your contributions in that context and without spurious charges of "equating" anything. Whatever the Baltic states were they were not free in any sense of the word under either regime. Do not fill the article with contentions that the Soviet occupation was the kinder, gentler one. I would also suggest you take the finer legal points to the state continuity article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Regretfully, the only "impasse" I see here is some editors wishing to change the scope of the article or to chop it into meaningless bits. I'll be glad to discuss any "inaccuracy" constructively without editors bending sources to their POV. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)