Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 23 May 2007

Soviet occupation denialism

Votes

Zero google hits. Please delete politically-motivated original research with neo-Nazi overtones. This sort of OR brings WP into disrepute. --Ghirla 08:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• del --Ghirla 08:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How many 'votes' do you want Ghirlandajo? Nick mallory 09:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you talk about? --Ghirla 09:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're googling it wrong. The search of yields around 19,600 hits. (Note the subtraction of Palestine-related issues. Also note that this particular search string also subtracts every article explicitly comparing Soviet occupation denialism to Holocaust denialism, so the actual number of relevant articles is greater. Also also note that a great number of studies of this phenomenon has been done in languages other than English, and that identification of denialism as a distinct phenomenon is relatively new and, as such, not explicitly mentioned in many of them.)

And the first link reveals where this hate speech originates from; Diaspora politics in the United States! -- Petri Krohn 09:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you, being familiar with the history of Holocaust denial, deliberately trying to go for irony, advancing an argument that so openly parallels the peculiar xenophobic notion of Zionist Occupied Government? If so, I do not approve of your sense of humour. Digwuren 09:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And your point in selecting one Googlelink is...? Also, everything you don't like isn't "hate speech", which are you denying this time - Soviet crimes or Russia's official stance on them? DLX 09:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And if you expand your field of search even further, you will get ten times more. None of your finds has any bearing to "Soviet occupation denialism", a neologism you coined a few hours ago. --Ghirla 09:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not coin it, I translated it. The original I used is okupatsiooni eitamine, to wit: . Digwuren 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We write an encyclopaedia in English, not in some obscure dialiect you quote. You should go with established terms in English scholarly discourse, rather than coining them when inspiration strikes. --Ghirla 10:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your ethnic insult is noted and forgiven. Digwuren 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, your assertion of "neo-Nazi overtones" have clearly no bearing whatsoever to this article. Digwuren 09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for debate, which is what this article is engaging in. Fails WP:POV. BTLizard 09:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Misplaced Pages fails neutrality point of view by deleting this article trying to describe the sentiment of the losers of the "Baltic Liberation". --Philaweb T-C 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The deletion request is politically motivated and improper attempt to get rid of an article discussing a notable, sourced point of view necessary to understand a number of current events in Eastern European politics. Digwuren 09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• It may be useful to rename the article to Soviet occupation denial. Digwuren 10:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  Today Hugo Chávez accused the Pope of Indian Holocaust denial. Should we start an article about that "phenomenon" so that extremist websites could quote Misplaced Pages as an authority for its existence? --Ghirla 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If the phenomenon is or becomes notable, as is the phenomenon of Soviet occupation denial, certainly. It does not matter that extremist websites might quote Misplaced Pages on that. Your implication to the contrary constitutes appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. Digwuren 10:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the phenomenon is notable or "comparable to Holocaust denial" as you term it. The Soviet Union officially condemned and denounced the secret protocol to the Soviet-German Treaty. President Putin repeatedly referred to that act to underscore his position on the issue. If you have something more to say on the subject, please go to Soviet-German Pact, rather than inventing or "translating" new terms of inflammatory nature. --Ghirla 10:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The title is a bit clumsy but it's a legitimate topic and indeed the crux of the current dispute between Russia and Estonia. The Baltic states were invaded, annexed and occupied by the Soviet Union and there's nothing 'neo nazi' about acknowledging that fact. The Russians still see themselves as liberators of the countries they occupied and are genuinely amazed that this position isn't held by the native populations of those countries. The place to sort out a NPOV on this is the article's talk page, not AfD. It can't just be subsumed into articles on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania because it's also applicable to the Ukraine, Georgia, Czech Republic, Poland, East Germany etc etc. Nick mallory 09:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure what to say about the AfD yet, but can someone point out the alleged Neo-Nazi Overtones to me? This may very well be my own ignorance, but I can't really pinpoint them. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic: I apologize if my tone offends.) Charlie 09:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

All that talk about "denials" (e.g., Holodomor denial) involves belittling of the Holocaust and the Holocaust denial, because it basically implies that the Holocaust is comparable to some other events in history. We know it is the fictitious under-pinning to the present anti-Russian campaign to rewrite history so that the Commies were much, much wickeder than the Nazis and their sympathizers. --Ghirla 10:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The USSR saw its 'liberation' of the Baltic states from the Nazis as its justification for everything that followed. This ignores the fact that the USSR invaded and annexed the Baltic states in 1940 when the USSR was allied with Nazi Germany as part of the Nazi Soviet pact. The USSR also attacked Finland and Poland before Hitler turned on his former allies in 1941. Nick mallory 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You may refer other editors to Soviet-German Pact without bothering to repeat the same mantra again and again in order to justify neologisms that were coined an hour or two ago. --Ghirla 10:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was answering Echuck's question Ghirlandajo. What part of my answer is factually inaccurate? Nick mallory 10:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the following edit to make it clear that the Soviet Union officially recognized and denounced the fact of the occupation, no matter what some Russia-bashers claim. --Ghirla 10:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Gorbachev's statement is wrong. He only denounced the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact; he did not recognise or denounce the occupation. Further discussion on the related talk page. Digwuren 10:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, that's the point isn't it? Improving the article by adding relevant information is better than simply airbrushing it from Misplaced Pages. Nick mallory 10:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the page consists of nothing but original research. In the lead, it states that the neologism invented by its author is "comparable to Holocaust denial". Ergo, the Soviet occupation is comparable to the Holocaust. That's what makes it so absurd. --Ghirla 10:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding another perspective here. It has been typical of Soviet Union's treatment of history, and of the post-1991 Russian treatment of history, to view the World War II (see also Great Patriotic War) as a black-and-white battle of good Communists versus evil Nazis (typically called 'fascists' (Template:Lang-ru). In light of this ideology, every claim that can be seen as casting disfavourable shadow upon Red Army's heroism, or the motivation of the 'good' Communist Party that directed the army, is seen as an act of allegiance with the 'evil' opponents, an attempt to heroize the Nazis. Accordingly, a number of the historians researching in 1980s and 1990s the Soviet crimes against humanity (committed mostly in 1940-1949) have been accused of neo-Nazism, mostly by Soviet and Russian authorities. Digwuren 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the present article. Do you deny the Estonians' involvement in the WWII massacres against Russian and Jewish population? Where have all the Latvian Jews gone during the war? You forget that in a few weeks a country as small as Estonia created 22 (!) death camps with the guards being almost all Estonians; that in 1941 9,000 Russian PoWs were "executed" by "Estonian Self-Defence"; that Estonian police battalions were particular murderous against Estonian Jews (out of the flourishing community of several thousand only around 12 had survived) and civilian population in Russia and Belarus completely burning down several villages with all their citizens, mostly women and children. It wasn't happening at the end of the war as a desperate attempt to get their, Estonian, hands on arms in the face of the coming Red Army as some try so hard to convince. It was happening right from the beginning. But do we have the article about the Estonian collaboration with the Nazis? No, we don't even have Soviet-Japanese War where my grandfather and great grandfather were killed by the way. Have the Estonian officials ever acknowledged their guilt in the Holocaust? If not, why do we have no article about the Estonian Holocaust denial? --Ghirla 11:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Our article on the other war you mention is at Russo-Japanese War. I've created a redirect at Soviet-Japanese War. The war predated the establishment of the Soviet Union. JamesMLane t c 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed he meant Operation August Storm. That's where Soviet-Japanese War should be redirected. Everyking 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should redirect it to a dab page. As long as it redirects to Operation August Storm, though, that article should point the errant reader to Russo-Japanese War, so I've added the appropriate note. JamesMLane t c 06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The supposed Dzyatlava massacre is under serious doubt by historians, and may be fictitious or misrepresented.

See, for example, an overview in . As an illustrative example, Leo Pihelpuu, who, if the accusations were true, directly participated in the massacre and was so charged, was not executed, as the Soviet law of the time proscribed for crimes against humanity; instead, he was sentenced to 25+5.

I'm planning to work on the article, but given the delicacy of the matter, it needs thorough preparation. Do not hold your breath. Digwuren 11:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source on the matter appears to be at , specifically . Digwuren 07:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're right: your accusations have nothing to do with the present article. Digwuren 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Estonian websites you quote are a fine specimen of Estonian Holocaust denial. The perpetrators of the Holocaust in Estonia were partially absolved, because the government of the Estonian SSR asked the matter to be suppressed. It was one of many mistakes of the Soviet government which encouraged the Estonians to believe that they had nothing to do with the Holocaust, while the Estonian (and Latvian) Jews simply evaporated, without any assistance on their part. --Ghirla 11:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What are your sources for this interesting conspiracy theory on Soviets turning a blind eye on crimes against humanity committed by others? Digwuren 07:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. So you're suggesting that the "Government of Estonian SSR" were actually neo-Nazis?? But remember, they were directly appointed by the communist party of USSR -- so the party leaders must have been Nazis? Eventually, maybe communist party itself was secretly a Nazi organization? On the other hand, Holocaust was not openly discussed in USSR. The history textbooks for schools did not specifically mention Jews; students were left with the impression that the main crime of Nazis was that they attacked USSR. Lebatsnok 09:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a place to discuss and invent things, like this article does. Plus, it fails NPOV by a league. -- Grafikm 11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic, well referenced for an article that was just started. Needs more time to be developed and polished -- perhaps the title should be modified (is denialism really a dictionary word?). Also, if we talk about Soviet occupation of neighboring countries, and the denial by some of certain actions that took place during said occupation, how about mentioning the Katyn massacre? I quote from that (featured) article: "In March 2005 Russian authorities ended the decade-long investigation with no one charged. Russian Chief Military Prosecutor Alexander Savenkov put the final Katyn death toll at 14,540 and declared that the massacre was not a genocide, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, but a military crime for which the 50-year term of limitation has expired and that consequently there is absolutely no basis to talk about this in judicial terms. Despite earlier declarations, President Vladimir Putin's government refused to allow Polish investigators to travel to Moscow in late 2004 and 116 out of 183 volumes of files gathered during the Russian investigation, as well as the decision to put an end to it, were classified." Sounds like a belated admission to me, not a full admission of responsibility for the massacre committed at Katyn forest in 1940. And this is not just my opinion; to quote again from that article: "Because of that, the Polish Institute of National Remembrance has decided to open its own investigation. ... The Sejm also requested Russia to classify the Katyn massacre as the crime of genocide". — Turgidson 11:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's an ancient tactic to bury the real issues in an immense pile of historical grievances. The so-called "Katyn denial" was discussed many times before and classified as another attempt to blur the uniqueness of the Holocaust. If you want to discuss Russia's attitude towards Katyn, you should go to the appropriate talk page. It's an immense topic which cannot be treated summarily here. And it has nothing to do with the subject of this page. --Ghirla 12:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be making the peculiar argument that the Katyn massacre (and other Soviet atrocities) should be swept under a rug because if that is not done, Holocaust might be viewed by some as non-unique. Is that correct? Digwuren 12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't "demand" anything to be "swept under a rug". I demand the articles to conform to WP:NOR. I don't think Misplaced Pages is a proper venue for introducing one's own neologisms and "research". If you are interested in researching "Soviet atrocities", please publish your findings in some reputable journal, prove that their denial is "comparable to Holocaust denial" and then return to Misplaced Pages. --Ghirla 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I apologise for misunderstanding your position, and express the point of viewhope that if you browsed through the references, you would see that this article conforms to both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I especially recommend which is very thorough, and takes a somewhat novel approach to the assessment of differences in interpretation of history, but all the references are worth reading. Digwuren 12:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla: Please assume good faith -- what I said is not a "tactic", but the way I think. And, the issue of Katyn may have been discussed, so what-- I was not part of that discussion (I only joined WP about 6 months ago), and this article seems to be a good place to put certain aspects of the Katyn massacre into a wider perspective, to wit, the refusal by some (including officials in the Russian government) to admit full resposibility for certain actions done by the Soviets in occupied countries, some decades ago. And, beg your pardon, why would the Katyn massacre committed by NKVD troops on occupied territory have "nothing to do with the subject of this page"? — Turgidson 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you identify Katyn (village) near Smolensk as "occupied territory", I don't think that further discussion with you will be worthwhile. Sorry. --Ghirla 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad -- I got carried away with the geographical location where the massacre actually took place. I was thinking of the Polish officers being rounded up in Poland by Soviet occupying troops in 1939 -- that was the occupied territory I meant to refer to. Turgidson 19:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. All this demonstrates why I think we should not keep this page. There are people pursuing a revisionist agenda and others opposing them. Until there's a more settled view of events the page will simply be a battleground of reversions where editors with axes to grind come to take a poke at their opponents. BTLizard 12:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this position have a basis in Misplaced Pages policy? Digwuren 12:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view refers to both geographical and nationalistic bias, both of which are relevant here. You can see them at work at Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. BTLizard 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is mere handwaving. There is nothing in WP:NPOV that would suggest refraining from creating articles on controversial topic out of concern that they may become battlefields for edit wars.

As for revisionist agenda, this particular revisionist ideology is quite notable, being part of the Russian Federation's official interpretation of history. It needs to be covered, under the very rules of WP:NPOV, as neutrally as we can manage. Digwuren 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Extreme POV Delete, this is a classic 'POV fork', one sided and unbalanced. Anything of value needs to be merged with another article (for example Legal continuity of Baltic states) which takes a more impartial view on the topic, and then deleted. - Francis Tyers · 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What, in your understanding, would be the other sides that need to be covered in this article? Digwuren 14:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not mention anything about the part that local (non-Russian) Soviet/Communist cadres played in the annexation/incorporation of the Baltic countries into the Soviet Union. - Francis Tyers · 20:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have currently trouble envisioning the relevance of that. Could you add the missing information, or at least suggest its scope and place in the article? Digwuren 07:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to Legal continuity of Baltic states or delete. Denialists of Holocaust deny that the mass killing of Jews took place or insisted that it was on much smaller scale. "Denialists" of Soviet Occupation do not deny that Baltic states were incorporated to the Soviet Union by the treat of military force or that it was followed by many unfortunate events. The only thing they argue is that occupation is the wrong term and say annexation or incorporation is the better term (e.g. that a Secretary of Tartu Raykom of CPSU Andrus Ansip should not be charaterized as an occupant or colloborator but rather as a Communist functioner of Estonian SSR). The discussion on the proper wording for the event does not worth a separate article and it is an original research. The only thing why the argument is present is because of the Legal continuity of Baltic states, the question whether the Baltic states share the assets and liability of the Soviet Union and the most importantly if they have any obligations to their residents. I think the theme is important and can include the legalese over occupation vs annexation vs joining Alex Bakharev 13:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. - Francis Tyers · 14:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect.

First, the legal continuity of Baltic states is already discussed elsewhere. This article is about the POV that they (and other occupation victims) were not occupied, or that occupation-related atrocities did not take place.

Denialists of occupation have denied a number of things over the various years, and typically only stopped at any particular point when it became too embarrassing to not do so. Take, for example, the very existence of MRP, denial of which was officially maintained for over 50 years; the Katyn massacre, which the Soviets for years attempted to blame on Nazis and only Gorbachev admitted to; or the genocidal forced deportations of many tens of thousands of Baltic citizens that were covered up until mid-1980s.

Your attempt to make sense of denialist claims is admirable, but your summary of these claims, not taking into account the evolving nature of such claims, is wrong. Digwuren 13:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been planning to write the article on Legal continuity of the Baltic states for some time now. With the present atmosphere and the influx of one sided editors, I am however affraid the article would not stand a change.

With the most controverisal articles it is often best to leave them alone and let the war mongers add all the venom they want. That way innocent readers will not be fooled, and will recognice the article for the crap it is, even without a POV or totallydiputed tag. The best hope for this article is, that it will end up in that category. -- Petri Krohn 21:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Giving up so soon? There's little controversy outside the minds of valiant occupation-denial warriors like you yelling "Nazi!" here. Would you perhaps care to stop arguing with rhetorical flourishes and explain just how the Katyn massacre, the Holodomor, the secret protocols of the MRP, the mass deportations or any other well-documented crimes against humanity will be read as "crap" by "innocent readers"? Unigolyn 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Its a valid article about the denial of crimes committed by soviet occupation. It has plenty of cited sources to make it worth of keeping and expanding. Pehaps taking the -ISM part out would make it more understandable as "Soviet occupation denial"?--Alexia Death 14:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the -ism:s. Now, the article consistently refers to 'occupation denial', ready to be renamed. Digwuren 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

rephrasing, as "about the denial of crimes committed and the fact of soviet occupation". --Alexia Death 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Denial of occupation and denial of crimes are different things, dont you think so?--Dojarca 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you were to do WP:OR, you could classify them separately. However, almost all the sources dealing with the subject I have seen treat the crimes as inseparably flowing from the occupation, and do not make this distinction. Digwuren 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork and Nazi propaganda. Controversies should be reflected in the relevant articles where both points of view reflected equally.--Dojarca 15:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

POV fork of what? And Nazi-propaganda? I see no Nazi views in this article. Could you substantiate the clams a little more deeply? --Alexia Death 16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First. There is no evidence that the term really exists and if exists, covers all the things mentioned in the article such as Katyn massacre. Katyn massacre as well as "liberation from Judeo-Bolshevist occupants" were the topics havily used by Nazi propaganda. In its essence the article is another revisionist attempt to reconsider the history and outcomes of WWII. The article labels such belief (i.e. denial of Soviet occupation) as denialist which according the denialism article is a belief contrary to the scientifically supported evidence. So the article describes denial of Soviet occupation to be a view contrary to scientific evidence, which is wrong as judical definition of occupation is a military control over foreign territory. The article covers problems already covered in other articles such as Occupation of Baltic States and we do not need another article covering the same topic or a new article yet another time citing Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.--Dojarca 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Ive already proposed and it has been accepted that the -ism part should be removed as this was result of slightly too literal translation, the occupation denial however is very real thing. Soviet army was in the baltic states until IIRC 95... So occupation is a historic fact. This article is not about that fact. Its about this fact being denied. It does not talk about MRP either. It talks about the fact that the existence of secret protocols was denied for fifty years. As to nazy propaganda, Nazy presence in the Baltic states is also viewed as OCCUPATION and is not a topic of this article.--Alexia Death 17:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No country can occupy its own territory so even if Soviet army units existed in the republics, it cannot be termed occupation. All points of view related the occupation should be covered in the relevant article Occupation of Baltic States. Existence of secret protocols to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact alreadey covered it the relevant article Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and we do not need another article on the same topic.--Dojarca 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A perfect example of the term Soviet occupation denial is a sentence like: "No country can occupy its own territory so even if Soviet army units existed in the republics, it cannot be termed occupation." It is obvious Soviet occupation denial, since all of the three Baltic States were recognised by the Soviet Union as independent states after the Estonian War of Independence, Latvian War of Independence and Lithuanian Wars of Independence. --Philaweb T-C 17:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And ceased being recognized as such after incorporation in the USSR.--Dojarca 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not according to Under Secretary of State in the US Sumner Welles, July 23, 1940 - and more than 50 countries who later followed this position. --Philaweb T-C 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reliable (i.e. not Estonial nationalist) source that the incorporation of the countries into the USSR was not recognized by such a number of states?--Dojarca 21:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the online sources refer to works of Tunne Kelam or Mart Laar in the end. While the latter is a recognised historian, I feel you would still unreasonably deny his work claiming "unreliability" and "bias", so you will have to do with an offline source:

The Annexation of the Baltic States and Its Effect on the Development of Law Prohibiting Forcible Seizure of Territory by William J. Hough

This is what Kelam refers. Digwuren 21:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a relevant quote from that source?--Dojarca 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you're trying to make one unreasonable "request" after another in hope that in the end, you can present a "failure" to heed such unreasonability as "prevailing" of your occupation denial arguments. However, here's a quote for you, from the conclusion:

Quoted in . If you want more, go to a library yourself, or ask your friendly neighbourhood professor of international law. Digwuren 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - A valid article. To say that this article is false and an AfD suggests that Western betrayal should go too. The accusations of Nazi undertones in this article is absurd. - 52 Pickup 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid article, valid topic. The phenomenon is even present here, on en.wiki. --Lysy 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  By this logic I suggest to move Occupation of Baltic states to Claims of occupation of Baltic states as the phenomenon exists even in en.wiki.--Dojarca 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — POV fork, original research. Lantios 18:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain. Hard one. Ghirla is right that the title is ORish (but descriptive titles are OK if phenomena is notable). Whether the phenomena is notable, I am not sure - the current references are mostly non-academic, and while they speak about similar pheonomena, I am not sure if it is notable enough or not. Thus, I abstain: if better references are provided, I may change my vote to keep, but currently I am almost tempted to vote delete (and if no good references are provided, I may change my vote to delete if deletion arguments get better...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename Maybe it would be better solution simply to create a section to Occupation of Baltic states about it? I must say that im not sure if that article is neccessary. Anyway this recent confrontation between Estonians and Russians in many articles at wikipedia which was started by Bronze soldier dispute is quite annoying. By the way, I consider claims that Baltic states were not occupied simple stalinistic POV pushing, just I have some doubts if this current article is neccessary.--Staberinde 19:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, I now support renaming article to Denial of Soviet crimes.--Staberinde 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Maybe there is an even better title, however the phenomenon is significant and warrants a Misplaced Pages article. What happened in Estonia, Latvia and elsewhere from 1940-1991 was an illegal occupation, and that is the official position of most major democratic nations of the world . Conversely, if, and only if, the Russian Federation, and most of the Misplaced Pages fans of its current policies agreed with the assessment of the democratic world then, of course, an article on occupation denial would be rather redundant.--3 Löwi 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - While neutrality of the article is questionable it is referenced and one of it's references proves that such term acctualy exists. And as for suggestion to move this to Legal continuity of Baltic states - concider that each of Baltic states is independent entity and each has different laws ---- Xil/talk 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete,Nazi propaganda shall not pass!--85.179.139.155 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, needs work though. It explains many things starting with the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn and ending with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia. Renata 20:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Is controversy around this issue notable for Misplaced Pages? - yes. Do official positions and references exist that affirm both points of view? - yes. Do various aspects of this controversy deserve separate articles, provided there is enough material, there are enough references, and that the articles represent NPOV and are non-OR? - yes. But the article in its current state doesn't represent NPOV and is an OR, therefore, delete. --BeautifulFlying 21:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is definitely not neutral point of view. There are a lot of web sites where you can argue or represent your political opinions, but not here. Vicpeters 22:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Firstly, it is a classic POV fork of the Occupation of Baltic States with the latter article in a current stated being itself far from NPOV. There cannot be any more fitting article to exemplify the very term of POV-fork. Secondly, the article is OR. Thirdly, it is started purely to grind one's ax. Fourthly, even if we are to have an article on such topic, it would have to be a totally different title and be written from scratch. As such, even if we would have agreed that this is a valid topic for an article, the current content would be useless. As per that and othe arguments above, a very strong delete. --Irpen 23:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Mea culpa - I provoked my nemesis into creating this article. To me it seems like preemptive rebuttal of something I was planning to write (not in the article space but in my user space.)

I believe that the use of the word “occupation” in reference to, or instead of Estonian SSR or Latvian SSR is in most cases hate speech (or even worse, it is state sponsored hate speech.) This choice of words is motivated by what I would call the “Baltic occupation myth”, and cultivated by what can be called “occupation theorists”. The myth exists for the sole purpose of denying the rights (including citizenship) of Estonia's and Latvia's Russian minorities. (Myth supporters will naturally argue, that no rights were denied, as these people had no rights to begin with.) This myth was created after 1991 and has all the features of a Big Lie. Its central premise is that Latvia and Estonia were occupied territory until 1991.

The use of the word “occupation” is directly related to use of the slur “okupandid” for members Estonia's Russian minority. As a comparison (using the original metaphor for self-determination), one could say that the Estonian Popular Front in 1989 demanded divorce from the Soviet Union. The Congress of Estonia in 1990 demanded annulment of the marriage. Occupation theorists see the whole relationship, up to 1991, as rape. Use of the O-word has the same power as calling the non-citizen Russians rapists.

If this really is a case of hate speech, Misplaced Pages dispute resolution mechanisms will not solve the problem. By definition, hate mongers are aware of the fallacy of their arguments. Counterarguments, however well prepared will thus have no effect. We will have endless revert wars and never-ending talk-page battles.

From the talk pages, it will be easy for an outside observer to see, when hate mongers are present. It will however be very difficult to see which side of the argument is hate speech. Hate mongers are not stupid; they may mimic the argumentation of a good-faith editor in every detail. The only way to tell the sides apart, is to “follow the money”; who are the victims that will suffer from the adaption of the lie or half-truth?

(Next we will hear accusations, that Soviet occupation denialists aim to victimize the Baltic people.)

I really do not know what to do with this article. It is valuable in bringing out some of the argumentation of the occupation theorists. As such I do not however believe it as any place in Misplaced Pages 's article space. All I can do is invite people who share my views, to work together in preparing the counterargument. -- Petri Krohn 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation theorists"? Please refrain from using such inflammatory language if you possibly can. Contrary to your neo-Stalinist fantasy world, the illegal occupation of the Baltic states is an accepted fact in the real one, and it resulted in the well-documented death, deportation or refugee status of a third of my country's population. "Occupation theorist" is as vile a weasel-word as "Holocaust theorist". But thank you for wearing your blatant biases so obviously on your sleeve. Unigolyn 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, hopelessly POV essay. The complex politics of the situation aside, I'm not convinced that this is a widespread phenomenon like Holocaust Denial. I think this page exists primarily as an attack against ex-Soviet interests. Lankiveil 01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. The subject is now very notable, thanks to Putin's propaganda machine. The article is referenced. It can be improved. No reasons for deletion.Biophys 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC) This article could be a part of a wider topic, Denials of Communist crimes. No reason to focus only on Soviet/Russian topics. There are good recent book by Robert Conquest on this subject: "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" (1999) and "The Dragons of Expectation" (2004).Biophys 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Not only this is not original research, but this concept was taught to me and others in all old Soviet history textbooks! Yes, I would tell there is absolutely nothing new and original here.Biophys 02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This can be a place to review the basis (based on published sources, so NPOV and topical from the article perspective, though the source itself may not be NPOV) for Russia denying that occupation took place and that the current Baltic republics are discontinuous with the first--without other issues being brought into it. This should be allowed to develop before branding it a POV fork. I do agree that "...denial" is better than "...denialism"--former is a factual description, latter classifies it as a phenomenon (which it may be, but need to have reputable source outside WP call it that). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I suppose "Basis for non-continuity of Baltic states" might be more academic, but based on what's been presented elsewhere so far, this would just become "what Russia says" with no further evidence. Aside from plenty of statements from the Russian press/politicians/authorities that the Baltics are not continuous (ergo, not occupied), there's been no other evidence provided. The classic if enough people say it, it must be true syndrome.

    Of course we would then also need a Basis for continuity of Baltic states. Which might not be a bad thing. Each "side" can state the position and then provide concrete evidence for the position as well as show where the "other" position is in error. Without edit warring. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If one wanted to characterize this as an "anti-Soviet" article, that does not equal "neo-Nazi." Characterizing this article as neo-Nazi and therefore worthy of deletion is a POV assertion; moreover, the reasoning that anti-Soviet = anti-(anti-Nazi) = pro-Nazi/neo-Nazi is in fact the official Russian contention--and so the very request to delete the article in fact proves the necessity for the article's existence. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Nazi propaganda and POV. Attempt to rewrite the history. Vlad fedorov 04:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Dear Vlad and other users of 'Nazi propaganda' label here. Nazi propaganda was very much in line with Nazi Germany's 1940-1945 official position which held that the sovereign states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had ceased to exist in 1940 when they became part of the Soviet Union. In simple words, according to Nazi propaganda there was no Soviet occupation after 1940. Hence, one should a bit more careful with the labels. Calling the Western democracies' position on the Soviet occupation and Baltic legal continuity 'Nazi propaganda' really means rewriting history by making Hitler, Goebbels and others look better, and giving too much undue credit to Nazi Germany. --3 Löwi 06:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  You might be interested in User:Vlad fedorov/Internet troll squads. Or perhaps amused. Or then again, saddened. Digwuren 10:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Very well referenced for such a recent article, more references will probably be found. There might be some POV, but no "Nazi propaganda" in current version. Also, it is clear that writers of that article have tried to stay NPOV, but on controversial articles such as this, there are bound to be people who find it POV. Highly noteworthy subject, that unfortunately seems to become more and more relevant daily. DLX 06:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rename or delete. The current title of the article is very misleading by intention. It leads to a mixture of two ideas:

• denial of the fact that this occupation took place
• arguing that it should not be called occupation, but rather annexation.

The article states that a "denialism" is the official position of Russian authorities. I would note that it is a "denialism" in the second sense.--Ring0 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with you on the title, recommended Denials of Communist crimes (or Soviet crimes) would be better for this article. This doesn't invalidate the article itself, though. DLX 07:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I would support Denials of Communist crimes for the title as well. --Lysy 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Denial of Communist crimes would be more grammatical.

I also prefer Denial of Soviet crimes over Denial of Communist crimes, as the subject matter deals specifically with USSR, not, say, crimes committed by Pol Pot and his followers. While the latter were also denied, it does not strike me as reasonable to lump these topics together. (In fact, even most sources, including studies, on Communist crimes and their denial, only deal with narrower topics, such as crimes committed and denied by the occupying Soviet Communists in the region of Latvia.) Digwuren 07:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Denial of Soviet crimes is better. DLX 07:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will also support Denial of Soviet crimes over the current title. It's far more neutral. As for "occupation", nobody (almost) denies that Baltic states were incorporated into the USSR against the will of the majority of their population. But calling it "occupation" or "annexation" is a political issue, not historical. So, this controversial term shouldn't be at the title of the article if we're striving for NPOV.--Ring0 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I would also note that the official position of Russian authorities is the denial of the fact that this occupation took place from 1940 until 1991 (and Ring0 and others are mistaken in assuming that Putin's official Russia is only arguing about what the occupation should, or should not, be called) -- which reinforces the need for such an article. Regards, --Klamber 06:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is nothing POV in describing a well catalogued phenomenon in Russian and Eastern European politics and media. Some of the delete votes here seem to not grasp the irony of their own occupation-denial viewpoints being supporting evidence of the topics existence. Furthermore, the hyperbolic accusations of "Nazi propaganda" are simply shockingly bald-faced, giving me reason to believe their authors have been drinking too much Kremlin Kool-Aid. Also, the Crusader-in-Chief Ghirlandajo's statements regarding the "obscure dialect" of Estonian, an official language of the European Union, are a reprehensible example of chauvinism. Unigolyn 08:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The official position of Russian government of denying the occupation and other Soviet crimes is well known and documented, thus this is an important article which describes a notable phenomena. Martintg 08:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Classic POV-fork. Wiki isn't hosting for rusophobists! --Paukrus 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And labeling unpleasant history "rusophobia" and trying to censor it is policy of wikipedia? I thought wiki was striving for neutrality...--Alexia Death 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Deleting it would be another victory of missionary Russian imperialists. The article is well sourced and neutral. On the other hand, denial of Soviet crimes (e.g, Katyn and Holodomor) is a different issue than denial of occupation. I'd suggest splitting the article. Lebatsnok 09:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In spite of the contentiousness of this debate with comments like, another victory of missionary Russian imperialists, deleting an article without even giving it a chance for development, strikes me as wrong and bordering on censorship. So let's see where this goes. I'm not against a name change if it comes to that. BTW, what is the purpose of an "abstain" vote? Are people who are able to vote in these matters so convinced that their vote for or against something is so important, that they need to "abstain" from casting a vote. When I have no interest in casting a vote, I don't abstain, I just don't vote. Dr. Dan 14:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep As I can see there are attempts to push the topic ad absurdum - "Nazi" Baltic states, "fascist government" and "history revriting", the Putinjugend propaganda claiming that Baltic states are only "interchangeable card", they were fake from the start, or regaining independence "only changed their master", even "Russia can do anything to protect it's national interests, and it's a right thing". And there is whole load more. If we would judge international politics this way - yup, this aticle is POV. If we wold accept the fact that not only major nations have rights and small nations isn't only "быдло" that should be destroyed or used of bigger ones wellbeing, and have a right to live their democratic way - this article should be kept as a reminder what happens, when democracy closes eyes for small losses in sake of peace. All the citations are from my expirience reding variuos Russian internet sites, and most of them could be easily found in variuos Russian forums. And yes, the article needs more work to do - write an readable essay not some sort of seemingly harsh thesis summary. P.S just noticed Paukrus comment - no, this is not about phobias, this is about recognising that someone has doone wrong. Only accepting past it is a way to find a better future, otherwise there will be revanchism, and Hitler has quite clear shown where it does lead. Best regards to everyone--Lokyz 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)P.s - Renaming this article to Soviet Occupation Denial would resolve few things - non English title for an instance.

• And those streams of hate go to Misplaced Pages, making POV articles. That's why they have to be deleted. -- Grafikm 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that because this may provoke anger a part of history should be forgotten and never discussed on WP? So Holocaust should not be discussed because it provokes anger against Neo-Nazy movements? This is absurd!--Alexia Death 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but sure needs cleanup - too one-sided as it is, so its NPOV is rather suspect. A valid encyclopaedic topic though, with quite a few references, so I see no valid reason for deletion. -- int19h 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article needs a lot of work. For once it should be renamed to Denial of Soviet occupation rather than “Soviet occupation denial” (which doesn’t say who’s denying whose occupation: Soviets were never “occupied”). Some of the sourced material is of great value, like the statement made by foreign minister Sergei Ivanov: “It is impossible to occupy what already belongs to you.” A rare find, almost hard to believe in today’s day and age. --Poeticbent  talk  17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wichtig Artikel, die Theme hat Platz. --Deutscher Friedensstifter 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Babel Fish Translation of the above comment added by Deutscher Friedensstifter: "Important article, the Theme has place." --provided by Poeticbent

• Merge to a "Historiography" section of Occupation of Baltic states. The topic is notable, as indicated even by the reaction of those who consider it propaganda, but given its contentiousness, we should try and keep the subject matter together in a manageable number of articles. Sandstein 05:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems too POV. Maybe a name Soviet crimes controversies would work. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete POV --Morpheios Melas 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:DELETE#Reasons_for_deletion is there any mention that POV is grounds for deletion. Martintg 10:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, worse than worthless, POV of the worst kind. Everyking 10:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What,exactly, are you considering POV there? It seems that everybody, who cry "POV!!!" fail to show what exactly is POV in that reasonably well-cited article. DLX 10:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and perhaps rename to some better title. The article is ok, but the title is definitely OR. Oh, and keep up the good job sourcing it. //Halibutt 11:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The arguments presented by Nick mallory, Lysy, Turgidson and Biophys are absolutely logical. The article cannot be merged into Occupation of Baltic States, of Bessarabia, of Poland, etc, etc, because it is a wider topic in history, it is about Soviet Union's legacy and communist system propaganda and nostalgia, not about Latvia, Poland or East Germany, for which this is a detail in their history. Likewise, I believe Holocaust denial is more relevant to Germany, Poland, Romania, Russia than to Israel. It is not a problem of Israelis if a German denies Holocaust, but of Germans. Similarly, it is a problem of neo-communists, and unfortunately also recently started becoming a problem of Russians, not one of Estonians or Poles. I also support Poeticbent and Halibutt's suggestion to rename it into something like Denial of Soviet occupation. The topic is widely present in historiographic debate, and therefore is by far not original research, IMO. However the user who started it apparently translated the name from Estonian, hence the linguistically strange name. That can be easily corrected. The negative reaction of many Russian editors of WP to an article started by an Estonian is sentimentialy understandable in view of recent political events, but feelings appart, I think people should regain their coolness and rethink their position - otherwise it looks very "don't mess with our history", something which civilized people shouldn't say. (Russification is a completely different topic, just as Germanization is not equal to nazism. One is national, other is political. It can be mentioned as a consequence of occupation, just as knowing French is mentioned as a consequence of colonialism in north Aftrica.) :Dc76 14:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  And what should be said about Poland in your vision? Is Polish territory still occupied by Ukraine? If to call Soviet control over Baltics "occupation" then why not to call contemporary Ukraine's control over Galicia and Bukovina "occupation"? Is Moldova an illegal occupant state?--Dojarca 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  What's your point, and how does it relate to the discussion at hand? Digwuren 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  Some users insist the topic is related not only to Baltic states, but also to Poland. So the question is what part of Poland was occupied and its occupation was denied by the USSR? And is it still under occupation?

  Please take a look at Poland#World War II. Digwuren 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  That section does not say that part of Poland was occupied by the USSR.--Dojarca 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  All of Poland was occupied, as well as the entire Eastern Europe. What is more relevant to the article is the denial of the Katyn massacre, for one example. Western Ukraine was indeed occupied (from Poland) by the Siviet Union in 1939, and was under its occupation until 1991. The local Ukrainians did not wish to change a Polonization policy in an otherwise democratic state with mass killings and deportations. They wanted to change it with something better not worse! And they, not the Poles, took arms against the Soviets in the region. Ditto for northern Bukovina, which was equally Romanian and Ukrainian in 1940 with important German, Jewish and Polish minorities. It was a cultural jewel of the former Austria-Hungary, totally distroyed by the Soviets in 1940-56. To not cover those crimes because the territory is now in Ukraine is a least very strange. (Soviets killed local Ukrainians just as they killed local Romanians or Poles - it wasn't eethnical, but political, how many times it is necessary to repeat?) The phenomenon of denial of all such crimes committed by the Soviets exists and is widely covered in the literature. That is what the article should be about, the policy of denial, IMO, while the facts of crimes should be refered to the respective articles.:Dc76 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The consequenses of the above is like playing a record backwards - it can be done, but it sounds horrible. The Baltic occupation is quite straight forward compared to the very complex situation of Poland after World War II. If Poland was occupied, then large chunks of Germany was occupied as well (Eastern Prussia, Danzig, Silesia and Pommerania). It sounds like a slippery slope to me to get that issue NPOV. --Philaweb T-C 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If Galicia and Bukovina were occupied by the USSR until 1991 as you say, they are obiously remain occupied by Ukraine, dont you think so? As well as parts of Germany are occupied by Poland and Kaliningrad oblast is occupied by Russia whith parts of East Prussia also occupied by Lithuania (as you insist at the end of WWII it was under Soviet occupation, so those lands were annexed to its illegal collaborating regime). This ideology leads us to re-consideration of all European borders established after WWII.--Dojarca 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not all European borders - only those drawn by the hand of Stalin. --Philaweb T-C 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to hear it, that those who argues for the article here, in fact aim to revise the post-WWII borders established in Europe.--Dojarca 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I would say you have either not read or understood the concept of Slippery slope. My point was that this could be the umwillingly consequense, I did not write of anyones intentions. --Philaweb T-C 04:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change any border, you have to follow the Helsinki rules established in 1975, and make the whole process overviewed by OSCE. You can use any arguments you want, even the ones above, but you'll have to convince the other side. Until then, the borders remain unchanged. I thought this was well-known. Personal oppinions are nothing but personal oppinions otherwise. Even if we all in WP would agree, that would be exactly 0% relevant to the world.

If based on the fact that millions of Jews were killed in Eastern Europe during WWII, someone would propose to create another Jewish state there, people would just laugh. But if someone says that because people laugh at this idea, maybe there was no Holocaust, that would be very serious to me, that would be an argument twisted beyond any common sense, that would be seriously mean. If some crazy fanatic says that - whatever, if state officials - that's very worring. We must learn to separate calling historic facts by their names from current international status of a territory or another.

After 1991, Galicia is not an occupied territory. Just as after 2004 (after USA formally ended the occupation), Iraq is not an occupied territory.:Dc76 18:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So why it was occupied before 1991 and is not occupied now? Was it returned to Poland? Were Helsinki rules not applicable to the USSR?--Dojarca 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Just for the same reason that Iraq is no longer occupied, and it was NOT restored to Saddam Husein. The sovereinty was returned to the people of Ukraine in 1991, while until 1991 it stayed with the USSR autorities. Former Yugoslavia was the only socialist country in Europe that was never occupied by the Soviets. 2) Helsinki explaines how to conduct yourself in foreign policy, it is not a law by which you get property back! And territory (in the sence of the one over which some hold sovereignty) is by the way not equal to property.:Dc76 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So, in your vision all terrritory of Ukraine was occupied, correct?--Dojarca 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't know, I never asked myslef. I am under no obligation from God to hold an answer to every question, be it even personal oppinion. I think historians, not me should answer that. What I believe is irrelevant for what goes into public record. Scholarly works and citations from official documents - is and should be the only thing that matters. The case of Galicia and northern Bukovina is more obvious (1939, 1940), as there are tonns of documents and works. For the rest of Ukraine? I for one don't know enough about its history. And as a rule I do not form personal oppinion before knowing at least all the basics. If you know Ukraine's history very well - please share that with me, give me links to WP pages on those subjects, and I would be happy to follow you for improving my general culture. (you are more than welcome to use my talk page for that) :Dc76 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that occupation is the control over foreign territory? So you imply that Galicia and Bukovina were not belonging to the USSR in 1991, yes?--Dojarca 07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When Galicia and northern Bukovina were occupied by the USSR in 1939, resp 1940, they were foreign territories by all standards. The fact that USSR declaratively annexed them did not make the occupation stop. Just as Nazi-occupied and partially annexed Poland in 1939-45 was occupied, not liberated by Germany. If nazi Germany considered Pozan or Torun non-foreign in 1943, it's the problem of nazi Germany's self-induced illusion of reality.:Dc76 10:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So why dont you consider they are foreign for Ukraine now?--Dojarca 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bukovina was definitely not "occupied". It was not even "annexed" as the term implies the unilateral action. Bukovina and Bessarabia were ceded to the USSR following the June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum. Only a takeover of a small Hertza region can be called an "occupation" but just the act of the takeover itself and not the entire 50 yr period of the Soviet (and modern Ukrainian) rule of the territory. Otherwise, good luck with creating and maintaining Occupation of Texas (1845 - present) to use a term to designate the entire period that followed the US annexation. --Irpen 11:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to have your own POV. However, it is not what historians say. I don't want to discuss this any longer here, for it is irrelevant. The point here was for everyone to express his/her understanding and present the known to him/her arguments. We are not historians, and should not debate them. You give a perfect example of Soviet occupation denial, but you are just a private person, so it is not a problem. Similarly, there are many (IMO crazy) people who deny Holocaust, and the last thing I wish would be to debate them. I don't want to use any adjective for those that deny Soviet occupation, I leave it to them to call themselves liberators of Europe or whatever they want - it is your conscience that is being stained, and it is your hands that you poor into the blood of millions of inocent victims. I don't want to make it more harder for you than it will be when one day you will realize the heaviness of your words. I am perfectly satisfied that God will judge you, and I don't want to add anything on top of that. So, look, have it your way or whatever way you want. You, not me will eventually "answer" for that. My moral duty was to civilizedly tell you to think twice, and actually I already overdid that. Have a nice day!:Dc76 12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Few can speak for the Lord. I doubt prophets on Misplaced Pages. --Irpen 12:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Noone can speak for the Lord. What I said was my understanding of the literature. Whether you would realize the graveness of your words in the future - maybe I was wrong about that, sorry. I surely hope you would. The last thing I wanted was to sound like a prophet.:Dc76 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as POV-fork. A logical complement to this article would be "Baltic occupation myth" dealing with the other side of the story (as in Petri Krohn's post above). The frame of this article seems valid enough to return under a different (NPOV) name and differently styled content, but in its current shape it looks like a lame hate attack in place of an encyclopedic article. --Illythr 15:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and while we're at it, let's create a "Holocaust myth" article, to get the "other side" of that story. The illegality of the Soviet occupation isn't some crackpot theory, it's accepted by every major government and NGO, aside from the self-proclaimed legal successor of the USSR and its few surrounding puppet states. Denial of this commonly accepted fact is both the official policy of the aformentioned legal successor as well as a widespread belief among pro-Kremlin civilians and ideologues in Russia and elsewhere. Erstwhile communist apologista Petri Krohn being one of them. Unigolyn 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here goes a formely neutral editor... Proof that bad environment makes good people become more like the environment, in this case to hate the "opposite side", IMHO. The fact that an article needs improvement is not a reason to erase it. The issue is not restrictic to Baltic stated, but to the entire Eastern Europe! I am very-very surprised that an editor like Illythr pretends to forget these. Unfortunately, people are weak when it comes to their personal feelings... So, every Chechen should keel Russians, and every member of bin Laden's family - kill Americans... poor world... :Dc76 15:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep very relevant topic. Vital for Misplaced Pages, taking into consideration the efforts of a group of users who advance Soviet history falsification here.
  If you're gonna rename it, please consider Pro-Soviet history falsification as an option.E.J. 15:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article includes some valid, sourced information about particular issues arising from the occupation, and about particular public pronouncements on those subjects. Those statements, with the references, should be moved to the relevant articles. For example, the article cites this BBC piece about the position taken by Putin's government. That reference is included in Occupation of Baltic states; deletion of this article doesn't mean censoring the information. There's a big POV problem with lumping together a disparate bunch of issues, and implying some grand conspiracy. JamesMLane t c 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep relevant topic. Needs balancing, though, as people should know the both sides of the coin.--Whiskey 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article is valid. There are indeed multitudes of people who deny the illegality of the annexation and incorporation of Estonia (as well as Latvia and Lithuania) into the Soviet Union. The desire to have it removed and it's nomination for deletion seems to merely be politically motivated. The article is sufficiently referenced (although it could be referenced more) and I see absolutely no "Nazi propaganda" - a claim which is absurd. Keep, expand and further reference from reliable sources. ExRat 16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, for two reasons. First, while the article is far from perfect, and may need retitling, restructuring, better referencing, etc., the phenomenon is real; the reactions seen here are just the tip of a vast iceberg wherein great masses of Russians continue to believe unquestioningly in the long-rotted Stalinist myth of the Great Patriotic War and that their tanks and rifles "liberated" - and nothing more - the peoples they held captive for half a century. Second, because the arguments marshalled by people, from some of whom I really expected better, in support of deletion, parrot this line to a tee and descend into argumentation that is, I must say, reprehensible. Allow me to "shine the spotlight, name the names" a little:
• Ghirlandajo: 1 "neo-Nazi overtones", 2a "the Holocaust is comparable to some other events in history", 2b "blur the uniqueness of the Holocaust"
  • 1 How? How is claiming that the Baltics were occupied (which only a fool could deny) a "neo-Nazi" sentiment? 2 Yes, the Holocaust is comparable to a number of other events: the Holodomor, the massacres committed by the Khmer Rouge, the Great Purges, the Cultural Revolution, etc. It is unique in its own way, but so are all the others. That doesn't mean it can't be compared to other events - it certainly can be, and I've just done so.
• Dojarca: "Nazi propaganda", "Katyn massacre as well as "liberation from Judeo-Bolshevist occupants" were the topics havily used by Nazi propaganda"
  • The Nazis harped on Katyn, and they claimed to be ending an occupation. That they said so does not mean Katyn did not take place, and that the Baltics were not occupied. It does not at all detract from the historical truth. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
• Petri Krohn: "hate speech (or even worse, it is state sponsored hate speech)", "the 'Baltic occupation myth' exists for the sole purpose of denying the rights (including citizenship) of Estonia's and Latvia's Russian minorities"
  • This is a fanciful conspiracy. Digwuren (I'm quite certain) did not create this article to help disenfranchise Baltic Russians. It is not hate speech to point out the ridiculous myths to which many Russians still cling. It is certainly not a myth to call an occupation what it was: an occupation!
• Vlad fedorov: "Nazi propaganda"
  • Thank you for violating Godwin's Law yet again. Do you have more constructive arguments? Calling us Nazis will not make Russia wake up to reality any faster. But I see you're in no hurry to do so - Soviet glorification is as strong as ever there; while Russia faces burgeoning problems that threaten its very existence, your government busies itself with bullying Estonia, a shining example of the merits of capitalism.
• Paukrus: "Wiki isn't hosting for rusophobists"
  • No, it is not Russophobia to highlight the very real and despicable phenomenon described here. A true Russophile (and I am one) believes in confronting the horrible aspects of that country's past, not in pretending they don't exist.

To sum up: we, those who wish to keep this article, are not Nazis, Russophobes, or hate-mongers. We are interested in truth. We hope Russians themselves will do so, before it is too late for their once-great nation. Biruitorul 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if this is the right place to ask, but one question seems not to be answered in this never-ending discussion: What are the primary sources supporting the occupation view? -- Petri Krohn 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(I will oppen a new section on the bottom for this discussion, -- or maybe we should take it someplace else.)

Strong keep but clean up a lot. The article is messy right now and needs work, but it describes a very real and notable phenomenon. You cannot delete articles simply because you don't like the phenomenon they describe--that is censorship, pure and simple. After all, we do not live in the Soviet Union.

• Regarding the charges of "Nazi propaganda": first of all, thanks for the millionth proof of Godwin's Law. Calling someone you don't agree with a "Nazi" in order to discredit their position is such an old, lame trick. Secondly, and more importantly, there is a fundamental fallacy in these types of arguments; that is, that since the USSR and Nazi Germany fought each other in WW2, being anti-Soviet necessarily means one is pro-Nazi. That is complete bollocks and outrageously absurd. Even a simple reversal shows how ludicrous it is: being anti-Nazi does not make one pro-Soviet!!
• The even sadder thing is the frequent assumption by many people that being anti-Soviet means being Russophobic. Again, ridiculous. Russia and the Soviet Union are different countries. For my part, I am quite an ardent Russophile (I began teaching myself the Russian language at the age of twelve and started reading Dostoyevsky and Chekhov (in translation) at thirteen) and an equally ardent anti-Stalinist and anti-Sovietist. Tanks rumbling through the streets of Budapest and Prague have nothing to do with Pushkin, Soviet crimes have nothing to do with Russia--until the current Russian government started glorifying the Soviet past, that is.
• I must express my outrage at the comment near the top of the page which referred to the Estonian language as an "obscure dialect." Such a comment smacks of chauvinism and imperialism. The article in dispute currently has some POV issues that need to be worked out, but let no one think that those who oppose the article's existence are shining examples of neutrality and harmony. K. Lásztocska 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename and wait

It is somewhat unorthodox, but it is clear that we will not reach consensus in this AfD - votes are going pretty much 50:50 (actually, few more keep's just now), with valid claims on both sides. It is obvious that the article is and will be highly controversial, although no one cannot deny the noteworthiness of the subject - but perhaps AfD in this stage is an overkill.

So, I would like to propose the article to be renamed to Denial of Soviet crimes and give it three months (or, to make things simpler, until 2007-09-01) to evolve, find citations, have its own POV fights and edits. After that, if someone feels that AfD is needed, we can start this discussion again. DLX 08:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this motion.--Alexia Death 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+1 - I support rename. This title would be far more neutral.--Ring0 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think title should be choesen more carefully. Honestly I think that current title is best of all sugestions or it should be changed to something like "Denial of illegal Soviet presence". The problems I see with current suggestions are:

1. Legal continuity of Baltic states - as I allready said above, the Baltic states are independent entities. And the article has been extended beyond Baltics by now.

   Those extentions (such as Katyn massarce) do not have anything to do with Soviet occupation or its denial.--Dojarca 11:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Basis for non-continuity of Baltic states and Basis for continuity of Baltic states - unnececery narrowing of articles' scope, that will not allow to view oppinions of both sides and will produce list of arguments
3. Denial of Soviet crimes - This may look as a good title at first, but concider that current article deals with Soviet policies that can't be labeled as crimes (e.g. Soviet Union did not enforce Russification policies in the occupied territories - russification is not a crime it is set of policies wich encourage use of Russian). ---- Xil/talk 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You definitely have a point with 3. - that needs to go from the article. However, the scope of the article has grown larger then just denial of occupation of Baltic States (that would merit only a section in relevant article, Occupation of Baltic States - and partially that topic is present there already) - and WP does not have an article about denial of crimes of Soviet Union. DLX 12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the entry on Russification policies. Digwuren 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned that as example, not sure if it had to be removed, my point was that there are other entries in that list that are in fact policies. Which makes me think that maybe Denial of Soviet policies could do (or "Denial of ...something that describes exactly which policy... Soviet policies")---- Xil/talk 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I support renaming the article to Denial of Soviet crimes. Digwuren 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's close this and open a WP:RM request for Denial of Soviet crimes instead. --Lysy 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with move.--Staberinde 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the title Denial of Soviet Crimes is too broad, we would have to include every Soviet crime, then the article would get way too long. I prefer renaming the article title to Soviet Occupation Denial, it is more specific and succinct. Martintg 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with the broad topic as is. If there will be too much information then the article might be split but then spliting it at Occupation vs crimes will create one short and one still very large page... --Alexia Death 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Still Denial of Soviet crimes would be best for beginning, it can be splitted later if it becomes too big.--Staberinde 08:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "crimes" is inherently problematic. This very title would be POV, as well as under-inclusive (given that some of the issues discussed weren't "crimes"). If the renaming approach is adopted, then something like Soviet occupation controversies would be better. JamesMLane t c 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We have Israeli-Palestinian history denial. We could rename this article to Russian-Baltic history denial. -- Petri Krohn 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And just what are the Baltic nations denying? As in, which facts, not interpretations thereof. The only side actively denying the existence of certain facts is the occupation denial side. Unigolyn 00:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically they are denying the existance of the Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, and the Lithuanian SSR and their participation in Soviet society. -- Petri Krohn 00:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is denying the de facto existence of the Baltic SSRs. What is being denied is that they were legitimate. And, to Dc76's comment below, the Baltics were/are merely the touchstone. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn, that claim about denial of existence of Baltic SSRs is ridiculous. Are you also claiming that those who speak about German occupation of Czechoslovakia are denying existence of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia?--Staberinde 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How many times it is necessary to repeat: it is not only about Baltic states!:Dc76 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Polarisation and encampment

A number of people are, apparently, taking this deletion proposal as a political issue of "If we delete, the Commies will have won!" versus "If we don't delete, the Nazis will have won!", seem to be aligning with the camps, and ignoring the actual matter. This is most unfortunate.

Can we, please, assess the deletion according to Misplaced Pages policy, and refrain from getting carried away with imaginary yet extremely fierce reenactment of World War II? Digwuren 09:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The attempt to ban "occupation denial" in Latvia and Estonia is notable. I see it as a government policy to mandate hate speech and some forms of holocaust denial.

I also agree with Misplaced Pages policy. Hate speech however is not a point-of-view. It is conscious communication of falsehood, and does not merit inclusion under WP:NPOV. -- Petri Krohn 13:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite any sources to support your claims of labeling a cited historic fact as hate speech or is this your Original Research? --Alexia Death 14:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also what exactly are you calling falsehood in this article? the facts of occupation and crimes or the fact of denial? Both have been cited numerously...--Alexia Death 14:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The essence of this article is not about hate speech - it is about describing the sentiment of occupied people. I do not deny there are extremists on both sides of the issue, but most of the people that lived through the occupation - or "incorporation" - actually has this sentiment of being occupied. --Philaweb T-C 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While we're talking about sources, I'm also interested of a source for the idea that considering and rejecting laws makes these laws into official policy. Digwuren 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

During the WWII, Europe has been all but wipped out by nazi vs commi antagonism. 99% or europeans are anti-nazi and anti-commi. So, I am appealing to everyone to not regard "the other side" as nazi or commi, but as a party in an academic dispute, and think of him/herself - maybe your own rhetoric would be at heart with Goebbels and Stalin. If you love one of these two people - there is nothing to talk about, if you don't - rethink what you write here, don't identify youself with them.:Dc76 14:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I find myself once again asking Petri Krohn the question, what is it about "anti-Soviet" where "anti-Soviet" seeks to bring illegal and immoral past historic conduct into its proper (and verifiable, not just POV ranting) light, that makes it hate speech? I do not deny Russia the historical Soviet victory over Hitler, driving the Nazis from Soviet territory. However, beyond those boundaries, particularly where the Soviet Union preemptively and illegally invaded and occupied the Baltics, the celebration of that victory does not also require glorification (and apparently rehabilitation, witness Dzherzinsky's bust being restored to the courtyard of the Moscow police) of Soviet despotism. Lack of said glorification of Soviet despotism and genocide (does any one want to defend Kolyma as an innocent farming community?) does not constitute hate speech or neo-Nazism.
    I most sincerely and truthfully fail to understand why, today, pride in Russian culture and achievements—Russian self-worth—requires perpetuating a myth of Soviet greatness.
    Pardon my bluntness, but to me this would be like the Germans needing to glorify Nazism in order to take pride in the German engineering achievement represented by the Autobahn.
    This "polarisation" and "encampment" is not based on both sides interpreting the same facts differently, it is based on one "side" ignoring and denouncing presented facts while failing to produce their evidence in support of their position, instead choosing to resort to blanket accusations of hate speech and neo-Nazism. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Baltic occupation myth is not an attempt to “bring past historic conduct into its proper and verifiable light”; it is an legal argument for the continuity of the Baltic states and for the “restoration” of independence. The “occupation” is a non sequitur from the argument. Rather, it works the other way around: It takes the legal continuity, and thus the “occupation” as premises and works its way backwards. The way it is constructed, is by selectively picking individual events from history, and presenting them in the most favorable light to achieve a continuous storyline. A popular example of this kind of reasoning is the The Da Vinci Code and its source, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

This presentation may have been a good legal argument in an international court on the status of the Soviet republics. It was however never tested in an international court. (If it ever was used in a national court, it most likely lost to the facts on the ground.) As a historical narrative it is pseudohistory. Not even its academic supporters see it as a attempt to describe history; it is not even historical revisionism. At best it could be described as historical revisionism (negationism), most likely it is national mysticism.

After independence, this legal argument has replaced real history writing, creating the “myth” (or should I say lie). The problem at Misplaced Pages is that Estonian and Baltic editors have understood this myth to be a true presentation of history. (Or they feel that because as a nation they were victimized, they have the right to revenge by falsification of history.)

What makes this (i.e. use of the word “occupation” outside its very limited historical context) hate speech is the central role of the myth in denying the rights of Baltic Russians. -- Petri Krohn 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you back up this rather fanciful story of thrill, suspense and mystery with any verifiable sources? Digwuren 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We could start with this: Professor Uluots, the Estonian Government in Exile and the Continuity of the Republic of Estonia in International Law by et:Lauri Mälksoo (see also quote here.) I would consider this an extremely biased Estonian source. Yet I cannot see the editor arguing that what he describes as an legal argument should be interpreted as historical fact. -- Petri Krohn 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (See also )

And this quote supports your story how, exactly? Digwuren 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lauri Mälksoo does not say that the "occupation" was a fact, He only argues that it is a plausible legal argument.

And why is this important? Because all sources that refer to the "occuption" as fact ultimately base their claim on work by Lauri Mälksoo and his colleagues. -- Petri Krohn 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed that Mälksoo's specialty is international law, not history? It is to be expected that he would consider legal rather than historical aspects of whatever he's writing about in publications on international law.

(commented in-line)

The claim of "occupation" is not based on historical research, but on legal wrangling. There are very few facts on the ground (or in archives for that matter) that would support calling the Estonian SSR "occupation". The occupation theory is mortally dependent on the legal interpretation. The main historical support is the small collection of documents of the government in exile (see here), all produced outside Estonia. -- Petri Krohn 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As for your claim of Mälksoo being the ultimate source of the idea of legal continuity, that is simply untrue -- and if you were to approach the subject even remotely reasonable, you would understand it. You have participated in Congress of Estonia which clearly explains legal continuity having been issue already in late 1980s (actually earlier, but this is particularly illuminating); yet you're trying to claim that an article from 2005 is a cause of something that happened two decades earlier. Digwuren 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not say Mälksoo was the origin of the theory, I said that it originates with the specialists in international law. Mälksoo represents a longer Estonian and expatriate tradition and bases his work on that of others. -- Petri Krohn 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be implying there is a world wide Estonian conspiracy to propagate what you call the "Baltic occupation myth". This is bordering on racism. The Nazis had similar conspiracy arguments against the Jews. The fact Mälksoo has an Estonian background is of no consequence, he does not publish in a vacuum, all his papers are peer-reviewed by other academics, irrespective of their racial background. Martintg 03:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you are, now you bring Baltic Russians to the table. To follow your argument, every problem of the world ultimately resides in the "myth" "created" in Estonia after its independence. I am afraind you fail to see that 170,000,000 people in Eastern Europe were occupied by the Soviet troops for 45 to 50 years. The denial of this fact by state and public officials is the subject of the article. :Dc76 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, in this case speaking of Latvia because I am more familiar with it: the reality is that nowhere in Russia or the other former "republics" of the Soviet Union do Russians live as well as they do in Latvia. Even Russian military "retired" in Latvia to the apartments they were able to claim (as opposed to going home to no barracks and no pay, the alternative offered by Mother Russia). When the international convention of Russian journalists descended upon Latvia so they could expose Latvian atrocities, even accompanying members of the Duma admitted things were not as had been represented in/by Russia. The myth is that Latvian Russians (and other Baltic Russians) are "oppressed." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

They are oppressed by denaturalization and disenfranchisement. -- Petri Krohn 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Russians in Latvia, at least, have chosen to become citizens. After nearly two decades of independence, it is the individual's choice not to seek to assimilate into the civic life of one's homeland. No one is denaturalizing or disenfrancising anyone. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The foregoing argument, about how well-off Russians in Latvia are (or are not), was generated by the presence of this article. That's a confirmation that the article is more tendentious than informative. And, to users Pēters J. Vecrumba and Petri Krohn, I say: I appreciate your having supported my point by conducting this argument here, but, now, please stop. Misplaced Pages is not the proper forum for such debates. JamesMLane t c 05:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is appropriately referenced. It is only the arguments against its creation and existence (charges of neo-Nazism and hate speech) which are "tenditious." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources?

What are the primary sources supporting the occupation view? -- Petri Krohn 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you accept as a primary source? Are you contesting that soviet forces entered into the states in question? Or are you expecting us to provide you with some academic work form an occupied country where resisting the regime brought heavy penalties and freedom of speech was nonexistent? Are these demands really reasonable? Do you expect us to provide you with a piece of paper from that time where the occupying forces leaders admit their actions as occupation? Occupation is not a view. Its a fact, based on undeniable actions, not some piece of paper from that time. Historians of the Free World have studied the materials and have concluded, there was occupation. They have been cited. The denial is also a fact. You are doing it, the cited sources show a whole country doing it... So, please, Tell us what is it that you WANT. --Alexia Death 18:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and look at reference 1. under this very page. It is from 1983, right DURING occupation... --Alexia Death 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. At first it was "hate speech". Then it was "denaturalization and disenfranchisement". Now it is request for primary sources. Does anyone else wonder with what Petri comes up next?

However, Misplaced Pages does not require primary sources - which is quite understandable, because in many cases it could easily lead to WP:OR. And article in peer-reviewed scientific magazine is highest level of source for Misplaced Pages (that was about your comment on this article). However, if you want primary sources showing that Russia denies Soviet occupation of Baltics, then article has already sources that qualify as primary - primary source is "the most important primary sources are likely to be documents such as official reports, speeches, pamphlets, posters, or letters by participants, official election returns, and eyewitness accounts (as by a journalist who was there)". We have already in the article:

Template:Quotation1

So, we have a foreign minister who denies occupation of Baltic states. This qualifies as those "speeches" mentioned by primary source article and presumably also eyewitness account. Or are you claiming that Sergei Ivanov did not deny the occupation? DLX 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask for sources for occupation denial, but for the occupation itself. How do we know that the Moon is not made out of cheese? How do we know this "occupation" ever happened. Did these experts in the West just make up the story, or did they have some kind telepathic or remote viewing link to Estonia and Latvia?

So far we have found:

1. An academic paper on the existence of a legal argument
2. Documents of the so-called government in exile
3. A non-binding resolution by the European parliament
4. Eyewitness accounts that the flag was lowered

-- Petri Krohn 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about the occupation itself, but about its denial. The article gives some See also to the pages where the occupation is treated country by country, and should give more such links. The quotation that DLX presented you is an example of what 50% of the sourses of this article should be. The other 50% should be scholarly works that mention the (social) phenomenon (denial). :Dc76 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it's not only about Russia and Russians. There are many Russians (I hope the majority) that do not deny it, as well as many non-Russians that do (which nation doesn't have those?) :Dc76 22:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We have not yet agreed on that the occupation existed. How can denying something that does not exist be notable. Should we have an article on Denial of the fact that the Moon is made of cheese? (Well, we have Round Earth denialism.) -- Petri Krohn 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

References

1. ^ European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities. C 42/78. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) condemning "the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and continues" and stating that "whereas the Soviet annexias of the three Baltic States still has not been formally recognized by most European States and the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of the Baltic States".

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  Per WP:DELSORT: "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Misplaced Pages articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate." --Lysy 06:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  Please express yourself a little more clearly. Are you saying that inclusion of the debate to this deletion sorting project was improper? --Irpen 11:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this debate is (twice) included on Misplaced Pages:Baltic States notice board. -- Petri Krohn 12:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  If this is to be in the list for Russia this should ALSO be in the deletion list of ALL other countries involved to maintain neutrality! --Alexia Death 07:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Literature - Further reading

Baltic States Annexation to the Soviet Union - Worldcat search result.