Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Constanz (talk | contribs) at 07:20, 8 December 2006 (→Third opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Recognition

"Latvia, its neighbours, most Western European countries as well as the USA never recognized the regime put in place after 1945" This is evidently not true. Major powers recognized existing USSR borders after WW2. The source is: Yalta Conference. Murmillo 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

De facto -- but not de jure. For more on the United States policy, see Stimson Doctrine. For more detail, see section VI in this article at Lituanus, for example.

(This entry continues below.)

Read this one attentively, please: . Since i don't have internet access to all of documents of Yalta Conference, I can't provide you with the text. As for Council of Europe and Europarlament. Their resolutions do not matter as CE and Europarlament are international organizations (or their parts), but not governments. They were not given right to speak for any european government. I think at least Helsinki Final Act(signed by presidents, prime ministers or at least ministers of foreign affairs) expects modifying the statement in the article. Murmillo 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that not a few embassies continued to function, and relations were restored rather than established anew. The restoration of relations with European countries is explicit. Membership in bodies like the Olympics was renewed. Helsinki did not affect the actual legal status, and the sentence as it is written is true. If you want to try to modify it, go ahead -- but the fact is that most countries did not recognize the incorporation/annexation. I do not understand what Irpen is trying to say, and I won't bother with this. Occupation is a fact, any decent history will show that, other encyclopedias present it as such, and that is good enough for me. --Pēteris Cedriņš 11:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the terms "occupation" and "annexation" are controversial regarding the status of Baltic States in the Soviet Union (independent of any viewpoints on the events of 1939-1940). The territories of modern Baltic States belonged to Russian Empire for hundreds of years (and the only Baltic country, which statehood has formed before 1917, was Lithuania that can be associated with Grand Duchy of Lithuania). The independence of Baltic States for a total of about 20 years (1920-1940) was related to the Brest Treaty and the so-called Peace Treaties with the so-called Baltic States (actually, former regions of Russian Empire). In fact, all these Treaties should be considered as Treaties between Soviet Government and German Empire (or Entente) on the other side, because Baltic regions were occupied by Germany (and Entente) during those events. According to the logic of modern nationalists those Treaties should be considered void ab initio, because 1) they were established during WW1 under military force of Germany and Entente intervention 2) they were concluded by the Soviet Government which was not the legal government of Russian Republic (according to results of the elections of the Constituent Assembly of Russian Republic Bolshevik Party took only about 22% of seats, at the same time Socialist-Revolutioners Party took about 40% of seats; also Bolshevik Soviets could not be considered as effective government during Civil War; also Bolsheviks were not formally recognized by the most of the states of the world until 1930s). As for diplomatic relations with Latvia you're not quite right just the same. USSR was not a unitary state, it was a federal state. According to the Constition of USSR its members could establish international relations and act as subjects of international law. We know, for instance, that Byelorussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR were United Nations members and concluded a lot of international treaties. Law has not restricted USSR Republics to establish diplomatic relations with other states. Evidently, every Republic could have its embassies. Latvia (later renamed to Latvian SSR) was not an exception to the rule. It is legally incorrect to oppose Soviet Republics to USSR as it is incorrect to oppose EU states to EU. The Helsinki Final Act was not the only legal document which recognized borders in Europe. Another example is the Treaty between USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany (Art. 3) signed on August 12, 1970 in Moscow (here you can see the text in Russian: http://www.portalus.ru/modules/history/rus_readme.php?subaction=showfull&id=1142027784&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&category=2). Murmillo 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Murmillo wrote: "...the so-called Peace Treaties with the so-called Baltic States (actually, former regions of Russian Empire). In fact, all these Treaties should be considered as Treaties between Soviet Government and German Empire (or Entente) on the other side, because Baltic regions were occupied by Germany (and Entente) during those events..." No, that is factually incorrect; Latvia was no longer occupied by German troops when the Treaty of Riga was signed; Bermondt-Avalov (the German-Russian "West Russian Volunteer Army") was defeated in 1919, and Latvian and Polish troops, as well as those units of the Landeswehr loyal to the Republic of Latvia, had driven the Bolsheviks from Latgale. The Treaty was concluded after free elections to the Constituent Assembly had been held, when the Republic of Latvia was fully in control of its territory. From the text of the Treaty: "Russia recognizes without objection the independence and sovereignty of the Latvian State and forever renounces all sovereign rights held by Russia in relation to the Latvian nation and land The Latvian nation and land shall have no obligations arising from their previous possession by Russia." The contention that the so-called "republics" of the Soviet Union could conduct their own foreign affairs is too ridiculous to comment upon -- the embassies and legations to which I refer represented the legal government of the Republic of Latvia, not the Latvian SSR (with regard to Belarus and Ukraine and their puppet UN seats -- Stalin is said to have suggested that Texas and California be given seats as well... note, too, that the Soviet seat passed to the Russian Federation). It is rather disingenuous to claim that the Soviet government was not the legal government of Russia, and then go on to claim that the forcible incorporation of Latvia was somehow legal; Latvia was a member of the League of Nations, and the Soviet government was recognized by nearly all countries prior to the occupation. The USSR reiterated its recognition of Latvian sovereignty repeatedly, even unto 1939/40. Today's Russian Federation is the legal successor to the USSR. --Pēteris Cedriņš 05:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me about the Peace Treaties. I admit I could be wrong in some details. Anyway, the so-called independence of Latvia was _declared_ during German Occupation and was established during Civil War in Russia and foreign military intervention into Russia. The overall understanding of the situation in Russia and the other world during that period shows that those events happened by force rather by some legal procedure and good will. The text of the Treaty has only a small meaning because it was illegal and forced. The so-called secret ammendment to the Treaty of non-agression (also known as Pact of Molotov-Ribbentrop) between USSR and Germany only underlines the fact that occupied and annexed territories of Russian Bessarabia, Western Belorussia, Western Ukraine and Baltic territories are considered by Germany (due to the acts of which they were in fact occupied and annexed in 1914-1922) as territories of corresponding Soviet Republics (as the successors of former Russian Empire), nothing more. Regardless your understanding of the political processes in USSR, in terms of law regions of some federal states can establish international relations. For example, Art. 32 (3) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Germany allows the regions (lands) to conclude international treaties (like Concordate between Bavaria and the Holy See of 1965), so to act as subjects of international law. A lot of other examples do exist. As for your claims that the embassies belonged to so-called Republic of Latvia, I must say that during 1940-1990 there existed no state with such name. Three essential attributes of state are territory, population and government. On the territory of Latvian SSR the only effective government was the government of Latvian SSR. The population voluntarily acquired soviet citizenship through getting soviet passports and participating in political life (I mean elections). You wrote:"It is rather disingenuous to claim that the Soviet government was not the legal government of Russia, and then go on to claim that the forcible incorporation of Latvia was somehow legal". It is quite unclear what you mean by "forcible incorporation" because Baltic territories never ceased to belong to Russia. The acts of the local authorities in 1939-1940 only brought local legislation in accordance with the legislation of USSR.

The statement:"Today's Russian Federation is the legal successor to the USSR" is a little bit confusing. Russian Federation is one of 12 legal successors (CIS Treaty members) of Soviet Union (Baltic republics terminated their membership a little before and are not recognized as USSR successors). RF has declared its sovereignity (from USSR) on June 12, 1990. Legal succession in international law is understood as transition of international rights and obligations from one subject of international law to another subject(s) (12 CIS members in our case). Only several things are related to what is called "RF continuity" (the only significant is UN Security Council membership). Apart from that modern RF should not be associated with USSR because it is highly incompatible with the political structure of USSR, its goals, etc. If someone is looking someone to accuse for local events of 1917-1990 then it is more correct to concentrate on Georgia (for Stalin), Israel (for 99% of Bolshevik Party leaders), Latvia (for more than 40000 of professional Latvian strikers that provided significant help to Bolsheviks during Civil War). Sorry for my broken English. 83.217.193.29 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of points in your assessment which, while appearing plausible, do not stand up to closer scrutiny.

I. Your postulation that Latvia's declaration of independence and subsequent peace treaty with the Soviet Union was "forced" upon the Soviet Union and therefore meaningless (in terms of recognition of a break by Latvia and the rest of the Baltics from Soviet Russian territory). This is, alas, the Greek chorus bemoaning the death knell of Russian empire and Russian greatness with the victory of Germany on the Eastern Front and what has widely been characterized by Russophiles as the "humiliation" of Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. It's far too much for a discussion here, but, in truth, Brest-Litovsk preserved Bolshevism and allowed Lenin not only the latitude and time he needed to consolidate the Revolution against internal adversaries, but the opportunity to launch Communist agitation in Germany which hastened its downfall.

II. Your wishful postulation that the Latvian Soviet Republic as member of a federation could negotiate its own foreign policy is unrealistic at best. Article 18a (enacted February 1944) of the Soviet Constitution does state, "Each Union Republic has the right to enter into direct relations with foreign states and to conclude agreements and exchange diplomatic and consular representatives with them." This was the basis for the Ukraine and Byelorussia (Belarus) joining the United Nations. This had everything to do with central Soviet policy aims and very little to do with republic's rights. When the Latvian S.S.R. dared to begin to exercise its constitutional rights in the 50's the government was summarily purged.

III. Your declaration that the Latvian state did not exist from 1940-1990 is patently false. The Baltic Republics each took steps to insure their continuation in exile. Power of State was transferred by the Latvian government to Zarins, head of the Latvian Legation in England. The affairs of the sovereign state of Latvia continued to be conducted in exile until such time that continuity was restored with Power of State returned to a sovereign Latvian government on Latvian territory.

IV. Your characterization of "the only government in Latvia was the Soviet one" and that people voluntarily signed up for Soviet citizenship makes it sound like people queuing up for a happy day in Disneyland. Please! People also signed up to be party members in order to keep their jobs and not be shipped to the gulags to die there.

V. Your contention that by its very existence, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact grants de jure continuity to Russian Soviet sovereignty over the Baltics is a leap of galactic proportions. Most notably, the "local authorities" you speak of were fraudulently installed and petitioned for membership to the Soviet Union in a manner illegal according to the Latvian Constitution. Only Soviet era encyclopedias speak of the "restoration" of Soviet power in the Baltics (ostensibly in continuity with the 1905 Revolution and its aftermath). Frankly, you also imply that Latvia's "membership" in the Russian empire was somehow a benign or natural state of affairs when, in fact, Peter the Great annihilated nearly every Latvian. Contemporary accounts indicate that one could travel mile upon mile without meeting a single person--there are estimates that as few as 17,000 Latvians were left alive after Peter the Great got through with joining Latvia to the glorious Russian empire.

VI. Your admonition that one should not associate the Russian Federation with the USSR because of fundamental incompatibilities is directed at whom, exactly? Perhaps the Russian Duma--which years after Latvia's (re-)independence saw fit to pass a resolution in November 1999 to "remind" Latvia it had been a voluntary and legal member of the Soviet State? The Russian Federation has gone out of its way to associate itself with the Soviet past and to rehabilitate and glorify that past. Even the bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky, head of the dreaded and murderous Cheka, now stands restored (in 2005) in Moscow's police headquarters. You are obviously confused about who is associating Russia with the Soviet Union.

VII. Last but not least, heap the blame on the Georgians (Stalin), the Israelis (Jews in the Bolshevik leadership), and the Latvians (who guarded the Kremlin and saved Lenin, a bit of an overstatement but there is basis in fact--they were promised Latvian sovereignty, actually, and for their troubles Stalin later ordered all Latvians in the Soviet Union to be shot). Excuse me, but has anyone here said anything bad about the Russian people? Pride in Russian heritage is possible without parroting Soviet and now Russian Federation propaganda. What's the real problem here? That Russians feel worthless without Soviet glory to bask in? "Ahhh... we were once an EMPIRE!" Lithuania once stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. I don't see any Lithuanian angst over loss of empire. Get a grip! Have some pride! Stop regurgitating Soviet pablum! Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Europe, see Renaud Dehousse, Department of Law, European University Institute, Florence, "The International Practice of the European Communities: Current Survey": "Although the Member States of the Community, along with the majority of Western states, have always refused to recognize the annexation of the Baltic states..."

From the Resolution regarding the Baltic States adopted by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, September 29, 1960: "The Assembly, On the twentieth anniversary of the military occupation of the three European states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union, Recognises that this illegal annexation was accomplished without the free voluntary expression of the Baltic peoples, Acknowledges that the great majority of governments of nations of the world still recognises the de jure independent existence of the Baltic states..."

From the press release of the EC, 27 August 1991: "The Community and its Member States warmly welcome the restoration of the sovereignty and independence of the Baltic States which they lost in 1940. They have consistently regarded the democratically elected parliaments and governments of these states as the legitimate representatives of the Baltic peoples."

Many other relevant documents may be found here. --Pēteris Cedriņš 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Best yet, would be to produce a cold war time document, with the official statement of the western government claiming that it does consider Latvia as being part of the USSR. Or, if such documents were never issued, say that the non-recognition fact, is an opinion of certain historians.

I read the article in Lituanus with interest. It does say that the US refused to recognize the act of incorporation. There is no doubt that annexation was illegal from the POV of the international law. However, not considering Latvia as part of USSR in 60s-70s is not the same as to acknowledge the illegality of annexation in 1940.

Actions of US courts is interesting but marginally relevant. The gov in US does not order the courts what to do. The annexation itself was clearly illegal and courts recognized it as such, no wonder. We should make it clear when speaking of "non-recognition" that it was an illegal annexation that was non-recognized and not the Soviet border. --Irpen 06:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

5 Occupation Years?

It strikes me as curious that the first five years of the Occupation of Latvia are segregated from the next 45. While I will not attempt to expand the article to include the post-1945 occupation, the reader should certainly be given a clear indication this article only covers a small, if important and unique, part of the occupation years.

This article is bluntly POV. Worst of all is the "recent misrepresentations" section, which I'm tempted to delete outright. Everyking 04:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I did a rewrite to make it less POV, though it probably still is very POV - problem is, the POV which I tried to remove mostly corresponds with my POV, someone with less of an oppinion on what happened in Latvia in the early days of the second world war would probably do a better job. I do think that the existance of this article in principle is very important though, though it should at the moment either be expanded or renamed. Expanded in the sense that having an article called occupation of Latvia not mentioning the German occupation (and the eventual reannexiation of Latvia in 1944 which happened after the withdrawal of Nazi troops and after the reestablishment of an independent Latvian government) just isn't right. I'd either have someone add a paragraph on the German occupation at least or move it to "Soviet Annexation of Latvia". I do think the words annexation and occupation can be used though, being neutral shouldn't stop us from calling things by their name. Especially since even the Russian wikipedia does this. ChiLlBeserker 09:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This article must be renamed. There is no single mention of the word "occupation" in the description of historical events within the article. There is no universal agreement on the term. My believe is that "annexation" is the proper term for this, at least, this view has equal right to exist. Such opinionated article doesn't belong here. Iļja 217.198.238.155 02:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Occupation" and "annexation" are very different; the Baltic States were occupied prior to their annexation (Latvia was occupied on 17 June, but was not annexed until 5 August). I agree that the article needs substantial expansion and revision, but I strongly disagree with the proposal to rename it. If I steal your car and six weeks later I forge the title to your car, an article on the theft of your car should probably be called "the theft of X's car," not "the change of title to X's car" (whether you tried to hit me when I pointed the gun at you is of course immaterial) unless confined to the forgery of the title. I agree with much of what ChiLlBeserker writes above, but his comment conveniently illustrates a serious difficulty with the term "annexation" as a replacement for "occupation": Latvia was not re-annexed in 1944 -- according to the Soviets, Latvia was occupied Soviet territory during the German occupation (this had bearing on how the population was to be treated , on how the Latvians who had served in the Legion were viewed, etc.). The government of the Latvian SSR continued to function, formally, in Russia. Most of the world had never recognized the original annexation, and this is quite different from not recognizing the occupation; the profound difference between de jure and de facto is central to the subject of the article. For example, in the period between the invasion and the annexation in 1940, many persons (including the presidents of Estonia and Latvia) were subject to repression by the Soviets and deported or shot (a violation of international law because the Baltics were still technically independent). There is another article entitled Occupation of Baltic Republics. In my opinion, both articles should be expanded to cover the German occupation 1941-1944 and the re-occupation by the Soviets. --Pēteris Cedriņš 09:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Occupation is defined in 1907 IV Hague Convention, Article 42. There was no Soviet military administration (and no war between Latvia and USSR) in Latvia in 1940, so we can't speak about occupation. 217.198.224.13 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the articles under what an occupying power's army is prohibited from doing according to the afore-mentioned articles, the Soviet army violated all the terms. Both the Soviets and Nazis conscripted Latvians into their armies. The Soviets deported Latvians off Latvian territory while Latvia was sovreign, an act of war. By any legal definition, the Soviet presence in Latvia during their first (one year) and second (~fifty year) was an occupation. The Hague Convention is also not the only definer of "occupation." From the www.unhcr.org site (begin quote) "Occupation is defined by an even clearer humanitarian law standard. The earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that “a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”98 A second definition is found in Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: “The Convention shall apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.” Of these two definitions, the Hague definition is possessed of much stricter requirements and would be more relevant to conditions of formal war. The Geneva Convention definition is more germane to refugee problems in Africa because it focuses on de facto control of territory, whether occupation is “partial or total occupation”, and “even if a state of war is not recognized.” (end quote)

What makes an occupation an occupation, according to international courts, (Human Rights Watch site) includes: "the occupying power must be in a position to substitute its own authority for that of the occupied authorities, which must have been rendered incapable of functioning publicly". Whether it's administered by the army or by another authority of the occupying power does not matter. It's still an occupation. Pēters 07:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I request the recognition of the alternative point of view in the article, at least in the terminology. The article is not neutral without it. 217.198.224.13 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Iļja

Iļja, I fail to see how the article lacks neutrality because it refers to the Soviet presence throughout its term in Latvia as an occupation. For an article about the Earth's moon to be neutral, would it need to hold equally valid the views that the the moon is made of cheese and that astronauts never landed there? Quoting from the REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE COMMUNIST AGGRESSION AND THE FORCED INCORPORATION OF THE BALTIC STATES INTO THE U. S. S. R., THIRD INTERIM REPORT, 1954 (U. S. Congress): "CONCLUSIONS - (I) The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were forcibly occupied and illegally annexed by the U. S. S. R. Any claims by the U. S. S. R. that the elections conducted by them in July 1940 were free and voluntary or that the resolutions adopted by the resulting parliaments petitioning for recognition as a Soviet Republic were legal are false and without foundation in fact. (II) That the continued military and political occupation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia by the U. S. S. R. is a major cause of the dangerous world tensions which now beset mankind and therefore constitutes a serious threat to the peace." Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Iļja, a question for you... is it about whether or not the Soviet Union was an occupying power or is it about whether or not you as a Russian Latvian (I'm admittedly taking a leap here) are to be considered an "occupier?" What makes "good" and "bad" Latvians these days (as in residents/citizens of the state of Latvia) has little, if anything, to do with one's ethnicity. Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is about Soviet Union, and, therefore, about my status. If an illicit occupation took place, then I, as a part of it, should be "undone" somehow, to restore justice and pre-occupation status quo. If you say that occupation is one thing, but because of impracticality of deporting hundreds of thousands of people you agree that their status is legal now, you are showing inconsequence, and someone will necessarily point it out sooner or later, and will be right. You quote a document by U.S. Congress, why should I give it more weight than any other. Most of the countries didn't have problems with post-war division of Europe, the U.S. was one (if not the only one) of very few. I deny that the United States Congress has more authority in this subject than any other body. 80.81.38.158 08:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Iļja

No - international justice, if there is such a thing at all, certainly isn't about pursuing hundreds of thousands of little personal vendettas - such as "undoing" the presence of former Soviet citizens who resettled to Latvia during occupation and their descendants. Restitution can take various forms and obviously is subject to law and common sense. Where nothing else is practicable, a simple acknowledgement that injustice took place as well as promise of non-repetition by the legal successor of Soviet state - Russian federation - should be the only remedy and just satisfaction Baltic states can hope for. Doc15071969 14:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the term "occupation" is by now widely accepted and used when referring to the events in question (see for example Britannica http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=occupation+baltic+states+britannica). Nevertheless, the accusations of lack of NPOV keep resurfacing from time to time. Perhaps we should take this throug some kind of formal NPOV dispute resulution process, that later can be used for reference? What forms is the basis of your claim of lack of NPOV - the view of what I would call" minority" certainly IS represented in the article by stating that: "The Russian Federation has repeatedly and vocally denied the occupation of Latvia, maintaining instead that Latvia joined the Soviet Union voluntarily and legally (statement by the Russian Duma, to "remind deputies of the Latvian Saeima that Latvia's being a part of the Soviet Union was grounded by fact and by law," November 19, 1999.)" Doc15071969 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In Talk:Lithuania, someone espousing that there was no occupation insisted the question be put to the "Village Pump" -- that those maintaining it was an occupation "should have nothing to fear" if they are right. And so that was done. I responded in detail in Talk:Lithuania and that person has not been heard from since. I made the invitation there: if anyone can actually produce anything supporting the Soviet/now Russian position, let's hear it. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Basis for occupation

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

Potential expansion

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

Merge proposal

The article on Baigais gads substantially duplicates this article, and it bears a title that is (1) almost unknown in English and (2) extremely objectionable to many, the term having been popularized by a work of Nazi propaganda with that title. The Occupation of Latvia article already duplicates much of the material in Occupation of Baltic Republics -- I think there is a definite need for this separate article, but it should focus especially on what was specific to Latvia, and incorporating some of the material from the Baigais gads article here would be appropriate. The other major change that needs to be made is the inclusion of material on the Nazi occupation in this article, as ChiLlBeserker pointed out above, and on the Soviet re-occupation in 1944-45. The difficulty, then, is where to end the article; there could be some overlap between this and Latvian SSR, though, with the last section of this article devoted to issues of international (non-) recognition, etc. At this point, both of the articles I propose merging require considerable work, and neither is at all "encyclopedic." --Pēteris Cedriņš 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Baigais Gads is a definition of POV. Also, consider remaning to include "1940" or "First Soviet" in the title. Or expand to include Nazi occupation and Soviet re-occupation. Renata 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Baigais Gads" can certainly re-appear here, covering the first Soviet occupation. That would need to be followed by another section covering the Nazi occupation, then finally, the Soviet re-occupation, probably with some mention of Baltic partisans (haven't checked to see if there's an article on that). Perhaps retitling as "Occupation of Latvia in World War II" or "Occupation of Latvia in the Second World War" would be a proper title and scope. It's in large part because of the experience of the first Soviet occupation that as many Latvians fled as did with the retreating Nazi army, winding up in DP camps all over Germany after the war (or, alternately, fleeing across the Baltic to Sweden)—so it's important with respect to Latvian history and diaspora to connect the two Soviet occupations book-ending the Nazi. The occupations also need to be discussed together in how they worked together to destroy centuries-old positive Latvian-Jewish relations. (Really a pan-Eastern-European phenomenon, but Latvia has always been the lightning rod going back to my personally hearing then Congresswoman Liz Holtzman declare "all Latvians are Nazis.") In writing "Baigais Gads" originally, I also sought to lay to rest what was and wasn't legal, to document Soviet intent through mention of specific artifacts (Latvian and Lithuanian SSR maps) and incidents (Stalin telling Munters he could occupy Latvia "now"), and to provide a more detailed chronology. I would like to see that preserved or expanded, as I found the current "Occupation of Latvia" article lacking in that regard. I should mention that from my perspective, at least, "Baigais Gads" is how the first Soviet occupation has always and only been referred to by every Latvian I've known (in exile, that lived through it)—that Nazi propaganda goes by the same title or that "year of terror" may now seem somehow a subjective judgement is unfortunate but not a reason to label the term POV. —Pēters 06:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but I would suggest "Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945" rather than "World War II" because the war did not begin here until the German invasion, and it is important to make that clear even in the title -- it is very common disinformation to try to suggest that the USSR needed to occupy the Baltics for its security, that Latvia was pro-German, etc. The process began before 1940, as already noted, and that can be included -- just as ending the article with the reoccupation and dating it will not imply that the occupation ended with the "integration" of Latvia into the USSR, which should be made clear.

Regarding the term "Baigais gads" -- it was referred to that way by many Latvians here and in exile primarily because of the Nazi propaganda that popularized the term, even if we take Virza's 1939 poem "Baigā vasara" as one of its roots. I am not trying to suggest that Nazi ideology was popularized together with the term -- it wasn't -- but the term is intimately and irrevocably connected to that text (if you Google it, the first hits are for the anti-Semitic propaganda, for example). Dribins notes that the Central Council of Latvia referred to the Nazi occupation by that term, by the way, and suggests that it could better be used in the plural ("Years of Horror") -- "Antisemītiskās ideoloģijas histērija vācu nacistu okupētajā Latvijā 1941.–1942. gadā.". The Latvian term is in any case rare in English -- and when it is used at English language links, it is often by the extreme right in defense of the Nazi work and its point of view.

"Merge" at Wiki means making one article of two, with one title -- I am proposing the incorporation of material from the "Baigais gads" article here and eliminating that article, not merely suggesting that the material re-appear here. Pēteris Cedriņš 16:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree on 1940-1945 for the title—Latvia did try and maintain neutrality when the war started and was not immediately affected. I do think "Baigais Gads" should be still mentioned as a term by which the first Soviet occupation is often referred to, with the note that propagandists have used the term for their own purposes. I do apologize for one lack of clarity on my part, which is, by "re-appear" I meant the Baigais Gads article contents being carried over to here and that article becoming a redirect.

I believe it is important to identify which Soviet actions were legal under international and Latvian constitutional law and which, whether by the Soviet Union and/or the Soviet installed Saeima, were not. The "Soviet presence was legal" and "annexation was legal and voluntary" and "occupation" is a POV term discussion needs to be laid to rest, or at least all the facts laid out: the deportation of Latvian citizens including government officials to the Soviet Union while Latvia was independent was an unprovoked act of aggression, the petition to join the Soviet Union was unequivocally illegal under the Latvian constitution which was still in effect at the time (aside from being requested by officials installed through an election which was both rigged and then completely falsified), etc.

My knowledge of the Nazi occupation is more familial than academic. Nevertheless, there are some topics there which I would like to see explored. There is the reality of the Nazis being lesser of two evils for most Latvians—obviously not for my father-in-law's family's Jewish best friend who was decapitated. More importantly, there is Stalin's widespread exploitation of Jews, using them to replace Latvians who were shot or deported—as at my mother's post/phone office in Talsi. It is because of Stalin that Jews became synonymous as Stalin's "collaborators." When the Nazis and their atrocities came, Latvians who participated did not do so out of alleged widespread Latvian sympathy to German anti-Semitism, they did it out of pure revenge. (Lunch time conversation my mother overheard in Talsi: "After what they did to my sister, I could kill them all.") My parents were saved by one such Jew, someone who was working for my mother at the post office who told her "don't go home" when the mass deportations came—the real point is that both Latvians and Jews were Stalin's victims. I find the notion that Latvians greeted the Nazis with enthusiasm and gleefully joined in their atrocities as an expression of centuries-old anti-Semitism (I have seen it described as such more than once) utterly repugnant. There are other issues to deal with as well, such as the Waffen SS—largely illegally conscripted but nevertheless eager for the opportunity to bear arms against the Red Army, knowing it for what it was because of the first Soviet occupation.

Not a simple topic to deal with, but an important one. —Pēters 17:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The topic is indeed an exceedingly complex one; I can't, however, agree that there is a "reality of the Nazis being lesser of two evils for most Latvians"; you mean ethnic Latvians, of course, not Latvian citizens -- but even so, as many as 30 000 ethnic Latvian civilians were killed during the Nazi occupation. The contention about Stalin's "using to replace Latvians who were shot or deported" is also questionable; one should note that more Jews as a percentage of their share of the population were deported in 1941 than persons of any other ethnic group, ethnic Latvians included. As to a possible motivation of revenge -- to quote Rudīte Vīksne, from the 2001 Progress Report of Latvia's History Commission: "The first findings indicate that there is no connection whatsoever between the events of the first Soviet occupation of 1940-41 and the participation of Latvian groups in the murder of the Jews. The motives for their participation are to be sought elsewhere." Three of the four main people ordering deportations in the security apparatus in 1941 were indeed Jews: Semyon Shustin, who ordered the deportation of 6636 persons and the shooting of at least a few dozen; Zyama Krivitsky, who ordered the deportation of 1915 persons; and Aleksandr Brezgin, 1138 (an ethnic Latvian, Jānis Cinis, deported 2479 persons), and this certainly helped establish the myth that "the Chekists were Jews" (Sources: Zālīte, Dimanta; Stranga). At the same time, there was almost no Jewish presence in the régime itself -- Dribins notes that in the "People's Saeima" of 1940, only 2 of 100 members were Jews; in the Central Committee of the Communist Party, 1 of 35 members was a Jew; in the Soviet of People's Commissars, there were no Jews at all. The Nazis used propaganda like Baigais gads to exploit anti-Semitism, but they definitely didn't invent it -- whilst Latvia had an excellent record for the treatment of minorities, including the Jews, by comparison to most of Eastern Europe prior to the war, a perusal of the regional press in the early 1930s would disabuse anybody of the notion that anti-Semitism was absent in Latvia; it was quite prevalent and often quite virulent. Among the things I think need to be stressed in any appraisal of the period is (1) that one must avoid the generalization that "Latvians gleefully joined in atrocities," as you say -- because we are talking about actual criminals, not "the Latvians," and the criminals were actually not so very numerous; to quote Andrew Ezergailis: "The criminally guilty, using the criteria of the war crimes trials in the West, would involve about 500 to 600 men, 1,000 at the most. That would include four dozen journalists who wrote, edited, and published Nazi propaganda about the Jews." (2) The level of "collaboration" should be kept clear -- Latvia as a state had been destroyed by the Soviets prior to the Nazi invasion, and Latvia was never in any position to collaborate with the Nazis; as Ezergailis has pointed out, Denmark did collaborate, and was thus able to save its Jews. Latvian nationalism, and that includes the ultra-nationalism of the extremely anti-Semitic Pērkonkrusts, was fundamentally incompatible with Nazism; the pērkonkrustietis Gustavs Celmiņš ended up in the Resistance, was captured by the Gestapo, and was sent to Flossenbürg, a concentration camp that held many prominent figures from the Eastern European far right. --Pēteris Cedriņš 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding... Rudīte Vīksne, from the 2001 Progress Report of Latvia's History Commission: "The first findings indicate that there is no connection whatsoever between the events of the first Soviet occupation of 1940-41 and the participation of Latvian groups in the murder of the Jews. The motives for their participation are to be sought elsewhere." I can only speak to my mother's personal experiences in a government office, where the exploitation of Jews replacing Latvians was complete—as assistant postmaster, she was the only Latvian left, working with Red Army soldiers with machine guns at her back while replacement workers eavesdropped and informed on every conversation. She lived simply because the Soviets needed her, as they had installed a grossly incompetent apparatchik as postmaster to replace the one who "disappeared." Frankly, for Latvia to legitimately and necessarily attone for its participation in the Holocaust, the findings of the history commission could not be otherwise and still be politically acceptable--any other response would indicate there was some "excuse" for the Holocaust in Latvia, and the Holocaust is morally inexcusable regardless of the circumstances. (One American Jewish leader withdrew in protest from that very commission, I believe, as soon as there was a sniff of linkage. I'll try and track down that bit of information again. And I'll be reading the report, obviously.) The Latvians who disappeared in Talsi to be replaced by Jews in those government jobs—which could not have been a unique situation, that is not how the Soviets operated—testify that Viksne's statement is as much a choice as it is a conclusion.

In the meantime, if we are agreed, I would suggest we go ahead and move this article to "Occupation of Latvia, 1940-1945" or is it more "Wiki" to say "Occupation of Latvia (1940-1945)", and insert stubs for the sections needing to be added. I would be glad to take the extra detail in "Baigais Gads" and incorporate it in a merged section dealing with the first Soviet occupation (and then eliminate that article and redirect here). And we'll see how it develops from there. —Pēters 00:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed re the merger, and there doesn't seem to be any opposition. Regarding the History Commission -- those sentences by Vīksne are very specific and refer only to the motivation of those who participated in the murder of the Jews. I have not known the History Commission to be politically correct or to change its findings because of outside pressure -- a summary of its activities related to the Holocaust can be found here. The context of a Jewish presence in the middle and lower occupation administration is also important; as Aivars Stranga describes it in Ebreji un diktatūras Baltijā 1920-1940 (Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Jūdaikas Studiju Centrs, 2002 , p. 245) (my crude translation), "a national consensus among ethnic Latvians had been reached in one question, and possibly in one question only: that the rôle of the minorities in the economy and especially in the administration needed to be reduced as much as possible -- in the civil service this had already been accomplished completely; in the economy, it would be done; and the behavior of minorities was to be inconspicuous." After the Soviet invasion, "there was a conspicuous 'reaction' -- the Jews 'returned,' and dislike for this is to be found in any and all Latvian memoirs, including those of Menders and Bastjānis, who were on the whole friendly to the Jews." There were, for instance, week-long riots in Liepāja after 17 June 1940, and though they were facilitated by the Red Army and Jews were not a majority of the rioters, Jewish participation was emphasized; the visibility of Jews by comparison to the Ulmanis dictatorship led to a distortion of their rôle (similarly, the one Jew in the Cheka basement in "the House on the Corner" became a prominent figure because many had contact with him). The Jewish minority was far from monolithic -- it was actually very divided, and it is worth bearing in mind that the structure of the community was completely destroyed by the Soviets; 12,4% of the 14 June 1941 deportees were Jewish, and the deportees included the community's (communities') leaders. It is quite common for the far right to point to Shustin, for example -- but he was utterly déraciné and a Russian not a Latvian Jew; to link the slaughter of one's neighbors in a Latgalian village to the presence of some Jews in the security apparatus and civil service is more than dubious, and rabid anti-Semitism among thugs (including not a few students, especially in the fraternities) was not at all rare prior to the occupation. --Pēteris Cedriņš 10:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a hand at the merger—my time's a bit limited the next few days, but I'm well motivated. I agree totally on Shustin et al.—far too much propaganda about Jews running the Cheka (a more atheistic group, frankly, could not be found!). I still have to make the observation. My mother, who speaks of her relationships with Jews with only fondness (and carried forward, all my best friends growing up were Jewish), was genuinely puzzled by the later Soviet oppression of Jews... "I don't understand why they would oppress their collaborators." Much has been written—and well—on the role played by propaganda on all sides. Still, my mother puts professional skeptics to shame, accepting nothing at face value. For her to be geniunely puzzled, still, 65 years later, speaks to a dynamic of personal experience influencing the beliefs of the "average person" at a grass roots level outside the propaganda machines which I am completely convinced has not been captured in current scholarship: a successful anti-Semitic propaganda campaign is not the source of my mother's puzzlement. BTW, I've written the Latvian Historical Institute and hope to correspond with Ms. Vīksne about seeking a scholarly context for my mother's experiences. I understand that her personal research has been focused on the Holocaust in more rural areas (which I'm hoping would include Talsi). —Pēters 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge completed

I took a first cut at merging in the Baigais Gads article, I'll be going back and redirecting that article here. The Nazi and second Soviet occupation (for the period through to the end of the war) need to be done. Rather than merciless editing, perhaps we can discuss here first for some consensus. --Pēters 07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the old "Western Views" and "Claims and Historical Reassessment" sections. Non-recognition of annexation will be dealt with at end of second Soviet occupation and, in any event, is also well known. The "Claims and Historical Reassessment" was a rehash of various POV claims and counter-claims. Where appropriate, details of events in these two sections have been already incorporated in the rewrite done so far. --Pēters 05:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That grey box does not belong to the article. It belongs to wikisource at best. There is a policy that says you should not include original texts in the articles. Renata 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the complete article and it is only partially quoted from and not reproduced in full, which presents a problem insofar as making a copy available on Wikisource. I can of course paraphrase the whole thing but I don't see that adding value. If there's consensus on "Wikisourcing" it nevertheless, I'll do it. Pēters 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

At least you could do this: select the most important parts of that order and rephrase them. Or you could leave some reaaaaly significant section (like 2-4 sentences). Renata 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The occupation of Latvia ended in 1991. Or at the very earliest, when stable, non-Soviet bloc governments first recognized the Latvian SSR. I don't think that happened until at least a few years after 1945. Some would say the occupation ended in 1994 when the last Russian troops left. heqs 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As I just mentioned above, occupation involves the invading power substituting itself for the indigenous and previously sovreign authority. Under those terms, and the fact that the Baltic legations continued to function in exile, I believe it's fair and objective to say that the Baltics were occupied for the full term of the Soviet presence. Pēters 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier on this page you mentioned that there might be an article on the Baltic partisans. I began expanding the Forest Brothers article a few weeks ago, but it still has a long way to go... (I know the 'see also' is kind of bloated right now, am actually planning on incorporating almost all of those into the text at some point). heqs 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do you have a link or source for that NKVD order? It should go in the article and it would be very useful to me. heqs 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been away from Wiki for a bit... in the article you can click on the Order 001223 reference in "Serov's deportation Order № 001223 applied to all the Baltics." which takes you to the Wiki article, where there is a link to the full text in the commons. Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal definition

There has not been war between the USSR and Latvia, therefore, according to international law, the Soviet presence could not be called "occupation". I propose that the article's title be changed as "Soviet domination of Latvia". 212.116.151.110 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The premise that "there was no war" and therefore, according international law, Latvia could not have been "occupied" is completely false. As noted earlier, the earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV: Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that “a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." A formally declared state of war is not required. If the hostile army controls the territory—meaning, the sovereign institutions of the occupied territory are no longer in control, then this criterion for "occupation" has been met.

Furthermore, as the Soviet, then Russian, military did not depart Latvia until well after continuity of Latvian sovereignty was re-established within the territory of Latvia, that qualifies the entire period of Soviet presence in Latvia as an occupation.

Finally, with regard to "war," the Soviet Union deported Latvian citizens to Soviet territory while Latvia was still a sovereign country even by the account of the Soviet Union, constituting a blatant act of war. Both deportation from occupied territory of its civilian population and the transfer of the occupying power's civilian population into occupied territory have been specifically clarified as grave breeches of the Geneva Convention.

Whatever your reasons for wishing to believe that the Soviet Union only "dominated" Latvia, they are not supported by the objective and incontrovertible facts. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for citing the Hague Convention. As it strictly states out: placed under the authority of the hostile army. Latvia was under the authority of a pro-Soviet, pro-Communist, but officialy Latvian government. There was not an occupation commission, made up of Red Army officers.

Subsequent to the invasion (as opposed to the initial stationing of Soviet troops on Latvian territory in accordance with the terms of the mutual assistance pact), the government was NOT an officially Latvian government, as it was (a) "elected" before the ballots were even counted (corroborated by Soviet documents), and (b) the fraudulently installed government petitioned to join, then joined, the Soviet Union under terms which were completely illegal under the terms of the Latvian constitution which was allegedly still in effect in an allegedly sovereign Latvia. There does not need to be an official military occupation commission, though it could be said that was essentially the role of the NKVD. (Just as there does not need to be a formal declaration of war.) Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If a deportation is to be considered an act of war, then the deportation of Jews in Tsarist Russia is by no doubt a Russo-Jewish war! DamianOFF 08:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately not quite, though I would completely agree on a moral basis. The "act of war" part is the deportation of the citizen of one sovereign state from the territory of that state and into the territory of the other (aggresor) state. That is legally different from the deportation of a citizen of a sovereign state to another territory still within that same state. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no state of war between Germany and Denmark, but there is an article on the occupation of Denmark. There was no state of war between Czechoslovakia and Germany, yet there is an article on the occupation of Czechoslovakia. Maybe the persons trying to argue against historical fact, but lacking a factual leg to stand on, could hop on over and try to change the titles of those and other articles, instead of wasting our time with these sinister and senseless polemics? I mean, informed argument is a lovely thing -- but perhaps one could read at the very least a wikipage or two of what has been written anent these issues, before wading in? See other encyclopedias (the sort with serious editors). See the works cited. See, heh, the Pravda of the day, re Czechoslovakia! --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I answered this one on the Lithuania talk. DamianOFF 08:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Boris Meissner, Die russische Politik gegenüber der baltischen Region als Prüfstein für das Verhältnis Russlands zu Europa -- in Die Aussenpolitik der baltischen Staaten und die internationalen Beziehungen im Ostseeraum, Hamburg:Bibliotheka Baltica, 1994, S.466-504 clearly defines the SU as aggressor and its seizure of the Baltic States as 'occupation'. Even Russian historians nowadays admit that “Soviet leadership, having thus broken all its treaties with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, entered its troops and began systematic Sovietization of the region.”. Constanz - Talk 17:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was the de facto situation, not denied by anyone. But the de jure situation was one of allied troops entering in accordance with an alliance treaty. DamianOFF 08:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You fail to comprehend that the 1940 events de facto meant that the USSR broke the friendship treaties, so it was not one of allied troops entering in accordance with an alliance treaty. Compare Meissner, who analyzed it carefully.Constanz - Talk 11:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it will become clearer with some coffee in the morning, but what de facto and de jure situation are you talking about? How is this discussion related to the Allied forces and their post-war occupation of Germany? Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I can repost here if need be, but because the issue had been raised in "Village Pump" relative to Lithuania I have dealt with the occupation Yes/No debate on the Talk:Lithuania page, section entitled "Whether or not the Baltics were 'occupied' is not a popularity contest.'" --Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Occupation" now fully documented

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

Soviet "pretenses" re: Poland

Please do not change pretense to protection. Stalin's "method" was to pursue geopolitical aim "X" while claiming "Y." I agree that Stalin invaded Poland, in part, to protect the U.S.S.R., however, unless you can cite a source which says purely protect, I will revert. My source specifically uses the word "pretense." I'll be glad to go back and annotate when I have some time; everything stated is directly from sources, I have not added my own POV (as in "pretense" versus "protect"). I'll be back to visit in a few days. Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not get your point at all here. Pretence was not changed for protection. Here is my edit. Staling invaded Poland to pursue his geopolitical aim indeed. But he needed a pretence to do that and such was a claim that the reason of the invasion is the need to protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians also noting that Poland, whose territory the invasion violated "ceized to exist" in the wake of German successes and the Polish gov's evacuation. --Irpen 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Do note that Poland gov evacuated AFTER the Soviet invasion - it was the Soviet invasion which ensured the Poland ceased to exist, not the other way around.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we're pretty much all on the same page here. My pretence/protection reference was an earlier edit where someone changed it to say that Stalin invaded specifically to protect Poland, changing the meaning from the prior (and which we agree on) Stalin used the pretence (excuse) of protecting Ukranians and Belarussians to invade Poland. (Also, spelling... seized (taken) versus ceased (ended).) My reading of the sequence of events is: (1) Hitler launches Eastern offensive, (2) Stalin pre-emptively invades Poland. Do we have a date (or range of dates) for when the Polish government actually evacuated? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to see a dateline, several officials were evacuating at different times. Who and when left. But the fact is that they ran away from the capital in the very first days of the war. Anyway, this is immaterial. Soviet claimed that their action is taken to "protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians in view of the Polands' imminent collapse". The geopolitically, the goal was to provide the country a dedree of strategic deapth in view of the imminent German invasion and ensure lesser strenghtening of Germany which was a threat. I am not trying to say defend the Soviet action and I take no position on the issue here. I am simply explaining facts. --Irpen 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

General criticism

Generally this article is in a dire shape. First of all, it arbitrary pastes together three different periods: Fist Soviet Occupation, German Occupation and Second Soviet occupation. This is simply unacceptable. Each occupation is an event of its own and the article about such events may exist but not the article of their arbitrary sum. It is like writing a single article with the material from Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878 and Russo-Japanese war pasted together. Or combining Battle of Khalkhin Gol with Winter War AND Great Patriotic War all in one article].

If you meant to have an article about the period in general, the text belongs then to the History of Latvia or, if you intend to develop the History of Latvia series articles, such as History of Poland or History of Russia series, this would be History of Latvia (1940 - 1945). You cannot have the coexistance of the History article and a fork devoted to a specific period where three separate events (which could have their own articles) are arbitrary pasted together. On top of that you have a third fork (!) about the German occupation. This is simply a mess.

Further, the entire article conveniently ignores the fate of Jews in the hands of the German friends in Latvia. I wonder why.

Finally, such lengthy articles on such controversial issues have to use inline references.

I really do not know how to recommend you to proceed with this because I have no idea whether you plan to write a History of Latvia series (then the article could be coverted to one article of a series.)

Stuff like "a British tourism brochure published a decade after Baltic independence repeated this fiction as fact, demonstrating the influence Soviet propaganda continues to exercise in the post-Soviet era." is simply ridiculous. What brochure? Published by who? How is some WP editor qualified to judge the external publication, connect the events on the whim and make powerful conclusions on the meaning of such connection (occupation->liberation->brochure->propaganda)?

For now, due to the problems with forking, arbitrariness of presentation and referencing, I will tag the article as {{noncompliant}}. "I'll be back to visit in a few days" and will check up on further developments. --Irpen 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is incomplete, not arbitrary. There's certainly no bias to exclude Jews/Nazis. Considering my father-in-law, sent to check on a (Jewish) family friend, found her (Nazi) decapitated body, there's no Soviet=bad, Nazi=good bias building here, at least not on my part.

I do agree that the article is getting long, there should probably be a summary occupation page then details on the separate occupations (and which could then also be multiple articles in a larger "History of Latvia" series). I would be glad to undertake that reorganization.

As to the "brochure" in question was published by the British government tourism agency. Its publication sparked an international incident where the government of Great Britian had to formally apologize to Latvia. It was acknowledged/characterized as an example of the pervasiveness and longevity of Soviet propaganda in the post-Soviet era. This was a very specific and highly publicized event. I'm not taking an event and constructing original research or (my personal) conclusions about Soviet propaganda based on a "whim."

Likewise, while I have my own POV regarding Russia's non-acknowledgement of the Soviet occupation, that's not appropriate for an article. If you believe there should be something more substantive with specific references on the Russian position on why the Soviet presence in Latvia was not an occupation (that had not been addressed, i.e., entered under terms of mutual assistance pact, Latvia freely and willingly petitioned to join the USSR) please point me to it and I will be glad to add it.

There is nothing in the article that did not come from the references already listed at the bottom of the page. I will update the reference section to indicate that, and will look for an appropriate reference for the the brochure incident.

If I've left out any of your objections, please let me know. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Peters, perhaps inadvertendly, but the article looks like an axe grinding exersize one has against the USSR and Russia. As I explained, there is no justification to paste together three separate events, except if your goal is to write a History of the Period article. If so, it should be called so: History of Latvia (XXXX- YYYY).

I am not saying on whose part there is any bias. I am saying that there is a lot of bias as the article goes at length on Soviet atrocities while you did not find time and place in it to elaborate on German and Latvian own atrocities. BTW, just curious, did Latvia finally tried Kalejs? There are no recent news on that.

Now, the O-word (occupation) issue. This word, depending on the context, may or may not be neutral. Let's start from the meaning. Occupation may mean one of the two things (see 3a and 3b here):

1. an act of occupation (the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE), like the Soviet occupation that took place in 1940 or the German one taking place in 1941)
2. the "occupation" in a sense of a political regime (the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force), that is the coutry's being ruled by the military force of the foreign government. Let's not confuse these two meanings and study them one at a time.

In connection with 1940 events, the usage of the term seems justifable by the word's very definition. So it is for 1941. Coming to the next occupation, we have a POV dispute. Could be that Soviet action of evicting Nazis from Latvia is also called "occupation" from the Latvia's point of view. However note, for the Soviets, this was an act of evicting an invader from the Soviet territory (they annexed it in 1940 de-facto). So, from Soviet POV this was liberation (and again, note that this term in the military sense does not imply bringing the liberty to people, see liberation 1b: to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power). I do realize that liberation in case of Latvia is not neutral either and by no means I want to suggest naming the article on the 1944 events a Liberation of Latvia (1944). However, the neutral term in this sense (neither Soviet nor Latvian POV) is "regained", "recaptured", "retakook control" etc.

And an outright POV is calling the following 50 years "the time of Soviet occupation". Again, I do realize that this is a Latvian POV, but encyclopedia should be based on the neutral POV. Soviet system was authoritarian and undemocratic, true, but Latvia was not a territory under the miltary occupation of the USSR (like, say, Afganistan (end-70s), Kuwait (1991), West Bank or Iraq (now)) but the territory integrated in the USSR rather than under its occupation. Its residents were Soviet citizens its economy was "expoited" no more and no less than that of other Soviet republics, and so on. Formally, Latvia was a constituent republic of the USSR making the USSR not a foreign power there. Now, we can talk length about "recognition/non-recognition". But no doubt that the term is POV because the condition of Latvia within the USSR was dramatically different of the condition of the territories commonly considered under occupation, such as Iraqi occupied Kuwait, Soviet occupied Afganistan, Israeli occupied West Bank, etc. In all those cases, we have a clear Metropolia vs Occupied Terriotry relationship, that is treatment of residents as foreigners, economic exploitation, etc. In none of this cases any effort is made to integrate the territory into the mainland. Latvia was integrated and it makes the case different. Again, I am not arguing "justice" here. I am arguing facts and neutrality. You can present the referenced Latvian POV in WP articles but not without balancing it and not under any circumstances you can use POV terminology in the titles of the articles.

The English brochure incident is presented improperly. It looks now as unreferenced, poorely phrased and, basically the Original research, that is Wikipedian's own conclusion about the Soviet Propaganda affecting the British Government. Even if this were to be addressed (and this article is not the place for such), the right way to do would have been: 'According to the statement of the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or whoever), "this shameful incident" (quotes mandatory) "... is a typical manifestation of the UK government being infested by the Soviet propaganda legacy and a brutal interference into the Latvian internal matters" (or whatever else and whoever else chose to say, I am just hypothesizing here).

I believe you that most fo the article comes from the refs. But the current condition is totally unacceptable. --Irpen 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, as I have already explained the article is incomplete. There is no intent not to deal with the Nazis as I already said. I'll be glad to add a note at the top the article is "in progress."

In terms of the occupation and the Soviet "POV" was they were "liberating Soviet territory," I fail to see how the result is an occupation the first time but not an occupation the second time when none of the circumstances regarding illegality, the disbanding and deportation of the rightful Latvian government, etc. have changed. Are you saying that the painting of Soviet propaganda of Latvia joining the Soviet Union willingly and legally is a POV equally worthy of the "Latvian POV" that Latvia was occupied? And to be NPOV both views must be reflected equally? That would appear to be the end result of where you are going with this.

As I have indicated, "occupation" does not require military control. Occupation requires that the rightful government can no longer function. You quoted a dictionary, I quoted international law. As the rightful government continued to function de jure in exile, the term occupation applies. Or are you saying that "at some point" the Soviet authorities became the "rightful government" and therefore the occupation ceased? There is no such thing as a de facto rightful government.

The "balance" is that Russia maintains the Soviet Union never occupied Latvia and purely and solely liberated it from the Nazis. Because the question has come up, I took the pains to clearly spell out all the details under which the Soviet takeover of Latvia was an illegal act of occupation--the details of which most are not aware, and which are essential to understanding the Latvian position (indeed that of the vast majority of countries). I did not POV rant about Soviet or Russian lies. From the very start I indicated Russia's objection to the term occupation right at the top. Irpen, if you have more information on why Russia says it was not an occupation, please present it as counterpoint, or if you have a list of countries besides Russia that have issued statements in continued support of Russia's position (and why), please add it. But for you to personally simply say Latvia was not under military jurisdiction or occupations simply don't last 50 years and that is sufficient cause to label the article POV is, frankly, your personal opinion; meanwhile, because you don't approve of the word "occupation", I am somehow a Latvian POV partisan even though absolutely everything stated is based on verifiable facts. Or are you doubting the Soviet Union's own documentation that it manufactured the results of the Latvian election?

As for the brochure incident, again, I'll be rewording once I track down good references.

I am sorry, but you have to present a far more compelling argument why the term "occupation" is incorrect than you think it's an awfully POV kind of word to be using. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 07:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to what Irpen would suggest for a title -- could we compromise upon "Occupation and annexation of Latvia," or? Could there be an article on the "re-occupation of Latvia, 1944-45"? These arguments have spilled into various articles, and I suspect that you've seen many of them, Irpen -- the fact is that only Russia and "the Socialist countries," and a few "neutrals" subject to their pressure, ever acknowledged the incorporation as legal. Should an article then detail the re-occupation? I think that the term, as accepted outside of Russia (or, more specifically, by pretty much anybody other than Russian government and Soviet apologists), is quite clear -- Latvia was occupied by the USSR, forcibly incorporated into the USSR, occupied by Germany, and re-occupied by the USSR -- which occupation ended in 1991 and was followed by the complete withdrawal of Russian troops in 1994. Most Western governments never recognized the annexation/incorporation. Irpen, you seem to acknowledge the fact that the occupation in 1940 was forcible and illegal. What had changed by 1944? Nothing at all -- in fact, the LSSR government functioned throughout the war, complete with soldiers named after the Riflemen. It re-occupied Latvia piecemeal and by plan, and started to function both practically and formally even before the capital was recaptured (for instance, the illegal grant of the eastern parishes of the Abrene district was made when the seat of government was in Daugavpils, when Rīga was still under Nazi occupation, by polling members of the Presidium of the Supreme Soveiet, no meeting required, though the law required a vote of the entire Supreme Soviet and not merely the Presidium). To boil this down, Irpen, I would ask a very simple question -- when exactly did the occupation end, to your mind? --Pēteris Cedriņš 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Peteris, I am confused, are you talking of legality, usability of terminology the optimizing of the content (whether to keep in in one article or not) or a proper title? To the latter question the answer is History of Latvia (1940-1945) because there is no justifiable reason to paste three separate events arbitrary into one article. February Revolution is a separate article from the October Revolution. January Uprising is a separate article from November Uprising and Kościuszko Uprising is yet a third article while Polish Uprisings redirects to the List of Polish uprisings. If you want to write List of Latvian Occupations article, you can stack them up all together. There is no other place to rant about three different events in one article unless the article is called History of Latvia (XXXX-YYYY). --Irpen 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you confused about, Irpen? I asked you what you thought a proper title might be, and I suggested that you distill your objections -- finally, I asked you to define an end to the occupation, which would mean that you would have to separate these events in a certain way. The way you wish to separate these events is morally and intellectually unacceptable -- Latvia was occupied in 1940, and restored its independence in 1991. The Occupation Museum, for instance, treats every phase of the occupation, 1940-1991. That is indeed the most commonly accepted definition of the occupation. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No it is a POV definition. And giving a Latvian museum website as reference... well, is contrary to WP:RS. -- Grafikm 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Peteris, I answered your question on the title. Either the combination of several events in the History article, or separate articles on separate events, not arbitrary events pasted together to make a convenient place to rant about certain grievances of a Misplaced Pages user against certain country. Each Russian revolution (1905, Februaru, October) is a separate article. Each Polish Uprising against the Russian Empire is a separate article, and so on.

Next, during the occupation the country is not ruled by the civil authorities and it is not integrated into a state that occupies it but rather remains a separate occupied territory, such as Soviet occupied Afganistan or US occupied Iraq. "Occupation of Latvia" ended when Latvia was annexed into the USSR becoming its part. As such, there was only one occupation, that is the action of 1940. And then there was also a German occupation in 1941, an entirely separate event which is underalted to the 1940 occupation (unless this is the History of Latvia arfticle or a Latvia in the Second World War article). The Battle of the Baltic (1944) was not an "occupation" but a military operation whose result was driving the axis forces and the restoration of the Soviet authority over the territory the USSR annexed earlier. This has nothing to do with whether such past annexation was fair and just. The annexation took place before the German invasion. Then Germany conquered part of the Soviet territory, then the Red Army drove the Germans out.

Considering the period until 1991 as "Latvia under the Russian occupation" is outright unacceptable for the NPOV encyclopedia. Latvia was not occupied by RSFSR. Considering it Soviet occupation is similar nonsense. Latvia was not occupied by the USSR but was part of the USSR no more and no less than Ukraine, Georgia or Kazakhstan. It was ran by the civil authorities, its economy was getting an equal share of the Soviet investments and there was no resemblence whatsoever with the Soviet military control of Afganistan, US military control of Iraq or Israeli military control of the West Bank where the locals were never treated as equal citizens of the occupying authority and no attempt was made to integrate the area into the country.

Your POV is tantamount to saying that Texas is now under the US occupation because US won it in the war with Mexico and installed its sovereignty over the state in an illegal way. Try starting Occupation of Texas (1845 - present). I wish you good luck.

Last but not least, the entire lengthy analysis and discussion of the term occupation is the original research by Vercumba. This is unacceptable.

So, to condence by objections:

1. The article arbitrary pastes different events together under one entry. This is acceptable only for the History of the country articles.
2. The article uses the POV terminology calling the entire period until 1991 as "occupation". Besides, the article even dares to include this POV in the title (I am marking it {{POV-title}} as such)
3. The article contains lengthy speculation that belongs only to a Misplaced Pages user. Such speculations belong to talk page if anywahere at Misplaced Pages. --Irpen 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

These events are not "different" (much less arbitrarily different) in that the Republic of Latvia, proclaimed in 1918 and still the same state today, not only essentially but also legally, soon to be hosting the NATO summit, is an entity with a continuity both formal and practical, one most countries recognize de jure -- continuity having been de facto interrupted by an occupation. That is part of the subject of this article. A few nations (foremost among them the nation that occupied Latvia, under different guises, and her former vassal states) dispute this -- they can compose a minority view. This is precisely why Latvia (and Lithuania, and Estonia) were not like Belarus, Ukraine, the Uzbek SSR, etc. An encyclopedia should reflect this. The Republic of Latvia exists today, and it exists on the basis of the Republic proclaimed 18 November 1918, with the same citizens and their descendants, plus those naturalized. The first elections held in the restored Republic were the fifth parliamentary elections -- in name, in letter, and in spirit (specifically discounting the previous "fifth" elections, which took place under occupation). This is the country that is a member of the EU, NATO, UN, CoE, etc. The Russian view can and should be placed in the article, but it is a minority view. --Pēteris Cedriņš 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Grafikm_fr, by your standard, the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. is POV about the death of millions of Jews. And citing anything they publish or otherwise issue to describe the Holocaust is contrary to WP:RS. Or am I missing something?

"POV" would be terming the entire Soviet presence in Latvia an occupation. Please note that I took pains to indicate that the initial stationing of Soviet troops in Latvia (and the other Baltic States) was legal according to international law, regardless that the pacts of mutual assistance were signed under duress.

Latvia was occupied continuously from 1940-1991, during which time the de jure government of Latvia functioned in exile. Again, I invite those who insist that Soviet "occupation" and subsequent Soviet "reoccupation" are "POV" and "ranting"--the opposite of that "POV" being that the entire Soviet presence was legitimate, as Russia maintains--to offer a verifiable basis for their contention, one that has something to do with Latvia and the Soviet Union. I've extended such invitations covering all three Baltic states. Please, let's hear it. If all the verifiable facts support the term "occupation," then who is being POV here?

Irpen, whether territory was annexed or not does not change the fact that it is occupied. There was no rule by the de jure Latvian civil authorities during the annexation. You insist occupations must be military and under military jurisdiction. You are wrong, plain and simple, according to international law. Finally, I have not done any original research--you give me too much credit as a scholar. It's all taken from published sources. It has been necessary to present the detail in order that it is clear what part of the Soviet presence in Latvia was legal under international law, and what part wasn't, and why. I wasn't aware that there is some restriction on a thorough explanation of anything. It is YOU that are doing original research by using dictionary definitions and your personal opinion to argue against statutes of international law and by insisting that occupations can "only be military." — Pēters J. Vecrumba active talk 00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vecrumba wrote: whether territory was annexed or not does not change the fact that it is occupied. Just as an example of this, consider this document on the case of Austria. Extract: International lawyers and historians have debated whether - from a legal perspective - Austria’s "Anschluss" to the German Reich should be considered an annexation or rather an occupation. If regarded as a case of annexation, Austria ceased to exist in 1938 and was re-established in 1945. If regarded as a case of occupation, Austria continued to exist as a subject of international law between 1938 and 1945, but was incapable of acting as a sovereign State. There has been debate on this subject on several talk pages, and yet we keep returning to the same arguments as though a multitude of sources hadn't already been cited and linked. The predominant view is that Latvia was forcibly annexed. Countries restored diplomatic relations with Latvia, which had remained de jure a sovereign state. That a few countries, notably Russia, dispute this, should be, can be, and is noted in the article. --Pēteris Cedriņš 06:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Irpen "Considering the period until 1991 as "Latvia under the Russian occupation" is outright unacceptable for the NPOV encyclopedia" -- no it is not, as the legal status of territory of Republic of Latvia under international law indeed remained - occupied.

Re: Irpen: "during the occupation the country is not ruled by the civil authorities and it is not integrated into a state that occupies it" -- not necessarily so. East Jerusalem, even though annexed into Israel, under international law still remains occupied territory. Actions that are illegal under international law do not create right, installing a civilian administration does not end occupation and does not confer legitimacy to rule over the acquired territory. Every State is under obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions made in contravention of international law. It is not bias to say that the territories of Baltic states remained occupied until 1991, it is plain statement of legal fact: see, for instance, resolution of European Parliament of 1983: "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". I'm sorry, but statement does not become non-NPOV just because someone does not like what it says.

Re: Irpen: "there is no justifiable reason to paste three separate events arbitrary into one article" -- if you look back, this "confusion" started out after someone - also in search of "balance" and "NPOV", I guess - wrote stuff about Nazi occupation, and added some of it into this article. I thought that time that it is not a good idea, but kept quiet because it was brief and inserted to link in with the other article. Now you added pics... and are claiming that article is "no good" - several topics are conflated. C'mon, at least remove the stuff you added, first... :) Doc15071969 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For once and for all

• Britannica: Soviet occupation
• EU suggests that Russia accepts finally occupation:

Considering that most of the world, exept of course for the Soviets, regarded it as occupation even in 1940s, that the events are still described as occupation by sources, which ought to be neutral and/or represent the majority opinion (e.g. Verheugen), it is clear that the aim of this dispute campaign by certain users can be descibed as POV pushing; promoting an opinion rejected by the majority. Compare: Flat Earth Society.Constanz - Talk 11:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The latter link is some political stuff, that can by no means be considered POV, academic and RS. For what it's worth, "Occupation after WWII" does not even make sense, since Baltic States joined USSR in 1940, whatever you define the process as.

Second, "Occupation" is too POV and awkward. There are pictures of people marching in cities in favor of the USSR, so presenting these events as a totally evil "occupation" is about the nastiest POV you can get, because the situation was, well, not so binary as you might like. -- Grafikm 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

People marching? As far as my homeland is concerned, people were forced to march, and the crowds consisted to a large amount of Soviet soldiers in civil cloths. Or have you read more about the Baltic history than the Balts themselves?Constanz - Talk 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people marching. You might not believe it, but Communist were not aliens, they were living and breathing people, often of the same nationality as you are. And as incredible as it may sound to your ears, they really believed what they said. And Baltic states are not an exception. As for "Soviet soldiers in civil cloths", do you think women were soldiers too? :) -- Grafikm 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Second link is not an acceptable source. EB is but EB speaks about the occupation as an act that took place in 1940. I think it is OK to call it so. What is not OK is to use "occupation" as the sense for the regime, not a military action, for all the years after the 1940. After the military occupation, Latvia was integrated into the USSR and become one of its republics similar to other republics. It is simlar to how Texas and Hawaii are the US states, regardless of whether their incorporation were just. Those were not ruled like occupied territories, unlike, say Namibia or West Bank. --Irpen 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

an acceptable source? Which sources are then acceptable? Comrade Stalin's and mr Putin's official statements? I've already referred to Boris Meissner's study. The author is lawyer and made perfectly clear, that the events of 1940 and so on meant occupation. As most of the world has ackonowledged. You are deliberately pursuing minority POV advanced only by the heir to the occupants, i.e official Russia.Constanz - Talk 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that of POV. Basically, what you do in this way is singling out a particular even. Why not an article about Occupation of Brittany (1532-2006). Why, it was annexed by force by the French king. Why not an article about Occupation of Hungary (17XX-1914)? Or Occupation of Texas? Or Occupation of Basque Country or Occupation of Corsica ? Any country expands its territory by any means it has at its disposal. Defining a control of a country by another as occupation is at best POV and narrow-minded, and at worst is a downright attempt at bending history the way you would like to. Only it does not work. Especially given the fact that Baltic states were full members of the USSR, and had the same load of advantages and problems as all other Soviet republics. -- Grafikm 13:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They were never legally members of the USSR, but occupied. As the Western world also maintained: Whereas the Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states has still not been formally recognised by most European states and the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of Baltic states . Constanz - Talk 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer my question. Why, in your opinion, is there no article about Occupation of Texas or Occupation of Corsica articles? We can't single out an event as "occupation" among hundreds of others, just because you fancy to. It's common sense. -- Grafikm 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, scrap that: Answer to the question about Texas is simple - it was ceded by Mexico as per legally made Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo. Republic of Texas seceded from Mexico, and having retained its independence, legally applied to be annexed into USA. Doc15071969 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Corsica was sold to France, what was "international law" at the time differed considerably from what it was in the run-up to WWII. An article arguing the Baltic States' case, outlining the legal principles involved, why Soviet actions were contrary to international law, and why did de facto occupation of Baltic States did not lead to legal extinction of them as subjects of international law can be found here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc15071969 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

As to Occupation of Texas or Baque country - you might google a bit to see the poor side of your argument.Constanz - Talk 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LMAO. Occupation of basque country --> 2 Ghits from "People's Daily Online English Edition".

As for "Occupation of Texas", I was talking about an article, not a link? -- Grafikm 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To remind you the Misplaced Pages policies

According to NPOV:

All Misplaced Pages articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.

1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.

Majority of Western researchers and public describe the events as Soviet military occupation. So far you have failed to present whatever reliable source claiming the opposite (it would remain minority POV anyway). Your original research over the occupation definitions doesn't prove anything, as authors cited above have already covered the important points. You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. is smth that suggests WP:TE, as well as assigning undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. (i.e Soviet/Russian Fed official statements and arguments; long ago rejected by the West).Constanz - Talk 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP policies, thank you. However, a point of view among two (basically Eastern and Western) hardly qualifies as undue weight. In addition, one should beware of grande political statements (both during and after Cold War), for they're definitely not NPOV. -- Grafikm 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof, that the events are regarded as occupation

Proof, that the events are regarded as occupation by third countries, including the overwhelming majority of the West:

• 1960 On the twentieth anniversary of the military occupation of the three European states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union
• 1983 Condemning the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral states by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 pursuant to the Molotov / Ribbentrop Pact, and continues
• 2005 On May 21, the United States Senate passed a concurrent resolution, urging, "The government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement, admitting to and condemning the illegal occupation and annexation" until 1991 of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Constanz - Talk 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, political sites, are not WP:RS because politics are, well, politics and POV. -- Grafikm 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Meissner was a scientist, not a politician. Unfortunately you haven't provided any other respectable opinions as a counter.Constanz - Talk 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You fail to understand that we have two POVs here: either 1.Baltic states were occupied or 2. Baltic states were not occupied. As sources prove, the first POV is shared by overwhelming majority in the West. It is a POV of the overwhelming majority, and POV of the non-participants. The second assumption has only been advanced by Soviet/Russian officials. It is a minority POV. We must not give prominence to the occupant's own justifications, or to draw a parallel, Flat Earth Society thesis here.Stop POV pushing, or trolling.

2. You haven't given any sources supporting your complaints. Thus your POV stuff remains original research. Constanz - Talk 14:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You provided three links to political sites. Neither of them qualify as reliable sources... -- Grafikm 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you broke all your arguments yourself: the thesis, that the Baltic states were not occupied relies indeed fully on political arguments by USSR/Russia, i.e participant of the conflict. None of your arguments, guys, even if you gave links, hold water, as per your own logic. I've referred to third party opinions as well, plus independent legal analysis (see mr Meissner's book, it's not available online).Constanz - Talk 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And what you fail to understand is that you get a wrong number of POVs. "Occupation" has a special meaning, which is not respected here. Baltic states were all three members of the USSR, were SSRs on their own rights, their representants sieged in the Supreme Soviet, they had the same rights and obligations as Russians, Kazakhs or any other ethnicity in the USSR. For instance, there were Estonian officers and even generals, in the Army. All this hardly qualifies as "occupation". -- Grafikm 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Legally it was qualified as occupation, for the umpteenth time (the sources prove). According to majority POV Baltic states were legally never USSR members. Independent Western countries, majority of the world subscribed to this logic. Only Soviets followed the ludicrous they had the same rights and obligations as Russians, Kazakhs or any other ethnicity in the USSR. idea, which here qualifies as WP:OR. As Estonian-American politologist Rein Taagepera has put it: Estonian SSR had as much legal basis as Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia. You do not have any legal basis for your suggestion, except of course Soviet self-justifications. Constanz - Talk 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If legally means "recognized by a US resolution", than this "law" has no basis outside the US. -- Grafikm 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As for your comparison with Bohemia-Moravia, it is totally false? Did representants from Bohemia and Moravia siege in the Reichstag? No, but Estonian representants did siege in the Supreme Soviet? Did the USSR close Estonian universities as Germans did? No. And so on, so forth. -- Grafikm 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Another blow to your own logic: Nazi-occupied Norway had its own puppet government, did this do away with the occupation? Puppet representatives of Latvian SSR's puppet government didn't help the fact that Latvia was occupied, as admitted by the whole world, except for the Soviets. Regarding your second argument (still WP:OR!), Soviets killed about 30 times more Estonia's inhabitants than the Nazis did (so exactly the opposite to your assumtion, regarding universities) - according to your view this means that there was no German occupation?Constanz - Talk 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Heroization of Fascism

Just today, the Russian Minister of Defense urged the Baltic Republics to stop their heroization of fascism. There is much material on the subject in Yandex News. Is not it time to add some of this stuff to the article? --Ghirla 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep to WP:POINT. Well, if you want to compare the influence of Barkashovites, Russian National Bolsheviks etc with the small skinhead groups in Estonia and Latvia... But not here.--Constanz - Talk 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Latvians fighting against Soviets = "anti-" "anti-fascists" = ergo, "fascists." The only thing being heroicized by Latvia is fighting against the Soviets to try to maintain Latvia's freedom.

Unfortunately, the Soviet Union was very close to officially denouncing the full term of the occupation of the Baltics before the USSR fell apart. This would have been on the heels of the denunciation, which did occur, of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. (Sadly, original research from folks directly involved.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm here in response a request for a third opinion on this discussion. It appears to me that Grafikm_fr ought to provide citations to reliable sources; otherwise his complaint cannot be sustained. Constanz, you should add your citations to the article and not just list them in the talk page. I think you are both arguing too much here. Making comparisons, analogies, and your own analysis is inadmissible original research, so there is no point in either of you continuing doing so. It is only necessary to supply sources that engage in this sort of analysis. Also, please stop edit warring. It does not help. Grouse 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV tags without any consensus is vandalism, as per Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, hence, one can restore any removal of tags without question. -- Grafikm 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it can be restored without question. It should probably be on there for now. Nonetheless, edit warring is harmful, so please stop. Grouse 17:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As you see, I have cited many Western sources, both regarding official policies as well as legal estimations: the other side hasn't found anything apart from the occupant's self-justifications... and the propaganda stuff above.Constanz - Talk 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We have two POVs here: either 1.Baltic states were occupied or 2. Baltic states were not occupied. As sources prove, the first POV is shared by overwhelming majority in the West. It is a POV of the overwhelming majority, and POV of the non-participants. The second assumption has without exception been advanced by Soviet/Russian officials. It is a minority POV. We must not give prominence to the occupant's own justifications, or to draw a parallel, Flat Earth Society thesis here. Pushing the Soviet-Russian POV is trolling, if I'm not mistaken?Constanz - Talk 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (note: copied from User_talk:Grouse)

It is not necessary to characterize the idea that Baltic states were not occupied as trolling. It is necessary for those who believe that idea should be in this article to provide reliable sources in support. Claiming that the alternative is POV is not enough to sustain this dispute. Grouse 17:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to sum up, I'd return to Flat earth theory comparison: in case we omit the number of 'believers', we can really say that “occupation-deniars”' work here is roughly equal to an hypothetical situation, when Flat Earth Society supporters would start adding POV-tags to Earth article. Constanz - Talk 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps eventually, but I don't think that the time is ripe to make that determination yet. Grouse 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also here as a user not involved in this discussion before: it seems to me that the 'occupation' in title is quite justified, but I completly agree with Grouse that more inline citations are needed in the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to delete the "why it's an occupation" and transfer that to a discussion archive, unfortunately, people keep insisting "occupation" is "POV" when it's not. I have invited anyone who wishes to post information that corroborates the Russian position that is verifiable in fact (that it was not an "occupation") on all three Baltic states talk pages. No on has accepted that invitation except to parrot pronouncements of the Russian foreign ministry. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your efforts to keep talking, to keep trying to explain are valiant but the unfortunate side effect of them is - it creates an impression that the topic is, at the least, not settled, and that is not so. There are variety of sources that refer to military occupation of Baltic states:

- '"Ultimatums of June 15, 16, 1940, charged hostile activities; Russia had occupied the Baltics militarily and had arranged for pro-Soviet administrations to request admittance to the Soviet Union."' --Encyclopedia of World History

- '"Nazi-Soviet Pact of Aug., 1939, placed the Baltic countries under Soviet control, and the following month the USSR secured military bases in Estonia. Complete Soviet military occupation came in June, 1940."' Estonia, The Columbia Encyclopedia

- '"Soviet troops occupied Latvia in 1940, and subsequent elections held under Soviet auspices resulted in the absorption of Latvia into the USSR as a constituent republic."' --Latvia, The Columbia Encyclopedia

- Encarta uses it.

- multitude of results on google book search just for for "Soviet occupation" Estonia OR Latvia OR Lithuania

Continued discussions and persuasion are ok, provided there is an argument based on something that can be falsified. Leaving aside the question about the content of the article, in this case we are faced with recurring charge: the very use - both legal and colloquial - of a term widely used to refer to the events in question, allegedly constitutes violation of NPOV. All the untenable arguments why the legal term isn't applicable put aside, the remaining basis for that allegation is - 'I say so'. For example here: "(w)ords like liberation/occupation/invasion do have such flavor (..)". That one cannot argue against rationally, nor does one need to, I believe. Same goes for asking for "references" for "two-three" paragraph articles, that merely summarily recite widely (or relatively widely) known historical facts. This "I say it's non NPOV" bottomline also suggests that, provided even you create otherwise impeccable article, provided even alternative POV is presented as it was in this case, nothing short of deleting certain words or replacing them with certain other words will satisfy those advancing such claims. I have never bothered to find out how, but there ought to be ways and venues in Misplaced Pages to solve such cases without engaging in seemingly endless discussions where no reasonable basis for having one--and no ground for agreement--can be seen. And by that I mean, unfortunately, having top spend time complaining to some "authority"; who knows where/how/what our options are? Doc15071969 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go further and suggest that an article itself is a mess, and it is a mess precisely because people still feel obliged to try to go out of their ways to attempt to "prove" something that by now can be called widely accepted: that Soviet Union occupied three independent and internationally recognized States, and illegally annexed them. The legal arguments have been made in detail (for instance, by late Dietrich Loeber, Dr. iur.); in all likelihood, the arguments will never be heard by a competent international court, and Russia is anyway not obliged to accept any such judgement even if they would be; this article can not possibly restate legal arguments; by now one should simply relay on sources like Britannica. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc15071969 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

people still feel obliged to try to go out of their ways to attempt to "prove" something that by now can be called widely accepted is correct, but who's to be blamed? That we wanted to ensure neutrality of the article and get rid of those tags? - All in all, every neutral opinion here seems to agree with our basic assumptions. Thus, adding the POV-tags is unmotivated, unless we regard Soviet propaganda as 'motivation'. But we don't, do we?Constanz - Talk 07:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)