Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

Occupation and annexation

Why the name of this article starts with "Occupation of ..." but for Crimea the name of the article is "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"? In both cases there were occupation and annexation and in both cases it is internationally not recognized. In both cases many countries condemned the occupation and the annexation and consider them to be a violation of international law. We should develop single approach either "Annexation of ..." either "Occupation of ..." and then rename one of this articles. I open the same discussion on another talk page too: Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation#Occupation and annexation. --Somerby (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF won't work, and the naming is dependent upon a) article topic and b) WP:COMMONNAME. The annexation of Crimea article is, foremost, about 2014 takeover, which was and is commonly known in English as annexation of Crimea. This article (Occupation of the Baltic states), on the other hand, is intended to encompass entire 1940-1991 period (and well, Russian interwiki for that article wasn't correct either, ru:присоединение Прибалтики к СССР's topic is limited to 1940, hence it is more workable with Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940); that particular article's renaming to annexation could be discussed, but only with strong evidence that "Soviet annexation of the Baltic states" is commonname for the 1940 events, otherwise the page title will stay), and that period's commonname is, apparently, "Occupation of the Baltic states". Hence, again, move won't be forthcoming. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

As I already explained several years ago, the problem is that most people believe that "occupation" is something obviously bad and illegal, whereas "annexation" is something more neutral and legal. That is not true: they just describe two different things. "Occupation" is an intrinsically temporary phenomenon, and occupied territories have a different legal status according to domestic laws of the occupying state. Thus, an occupied territory always has a different legal status, and the population of the occupied territory do not fall completely under the occupying state's jurisdiction (some special IDs are usually issued to them). These as well as many other aspects are stipulated by Geneva conventions. Thus, after the fall of the Third Reich, the Allies had to invent the occupatio sui generis and debellatio concepts to make Nuremberg Trials possible. Indeed the actions of Nazi leaders were in full accordance with Nazi Germany's laws, and, since, per Geneva conventions, the citizens of the occupied state do not fall under the occupying state's jurisdiction, the Nuremberg trials would be impossible if Germany had a status of an occupied state.

In contrast, "annexation" is a complete and permanent incorporation of some territory into another state. Clearly, that is what happened in Baltic states (and Crimea) falls under the definition of "annexation", and, therefore, that should be described as such.

However, there is one big problem here. According to Geneva conventions, occupied territories cannot be annexed. Therefore, both Crimean and Baltic cases should be described as "illegal annexation as a result of military occupation". The problem is that most writers do not understand those nuances, and apply the term "occupation" to the Baltic case (as if some military administration existed in the Baltic states during the whole period of 1940-91, and the Baltic citizens has some specific IDs, different from Soviet passports, and they had different political and civil rights etc). However, if that is the case, that automatically means that, e.g. Vilnius must be returned to Poland (for obvious reasons), and so on. To avoid that problem, an Estonian scholar Malksoo applied the term occupatio sui generis to the Baltic states, but as he concluded, only 1940 naval blockade was the reason to conclude so. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Creation of a civilian administration in an occupied territory does not necessarily end the occupation. Contrary to some claims, there existed a mighty Soviet military administration in Estonia (resp. Latvia, Lithuania) not just during active armed guerilla resistance, but during the whole period of 1944-91; the Soviet military administration was not reporting to any Estonian civilian authorities, although the Soviet military had exclusive control over large areas of Estonian land and sea; and over hundreds of thousands of military personnel and family members (who all had specific ID documents, different from Estonian civilians'). Moreover, even though Soviet military forcibly conscripted men from occupied Estonia (in violation of another Geneva convention) the Estonian conscripts specifically did not have a right to do the military service in Estonia. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... It certainly looked like a foreign military occupation, and the Soviets military acted like occupiers with no Estonian participation nor any civilian oversight, so not surprisingly most Estonians (resp. Latvians and Lithuanians) as well as many political leaders in the free world also considered it an occupation from 1944 until 1991.3 Löwi (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean a Baltic military district? If that is what you mean, then I will disappoint you: the whole USSR territory was divided among military districts (Central military district, Volga-Ural military district, Trans-Caucasus military district etc) . That does not put those territories under military occupation. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, the administration of other military districts was not reporting to local civilian administration in Central Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. Soviet military conscripted men in e.g. Moscow in the same way as in, e.g. Tallinn: it was compulsory conscription, and the status of Estonian conscripts was identical to the status of Russian ones. Of course, by saying "identical" I meant "identical from the point of view of domestic Soviet laws". That creates a problem: from one hand, the Baltic states were fully incorporated into the Soviet Union and their status was identical to that of other Soviet territories, which does not allow us to claim the Baltic states were the territories under military occupation. From another hand, the annexation was preceded by military occupation in 1940, which makes the former illegal. As I already explained that is a very complicated and controversial issue, which had no precedents in history, and which should be treated as some unique event. Therefore, your "duck" arguments are superficial and hardly productive. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

German rule "less harsh" than Soviet rule.

Under the topic of "German occupation (1941–1944)" and "Ostland province and the Holocaust". The article states that "However, for the majority of Baltic people, German rule was less harsh than Soviet rule had been, and it was less brutal than German occupations elsewhere in eastern Europe"

This is only the opinion of John Hiden and Patrick Salmon which is said in their book "The Baltic Nations And Europe", and it does not belong in the article as it is subjective and without backing. It contrasts particularly with the earlier reporting of the deaths caused by the Holocaust in the Baltic countries under German occupation. BlueRobot116 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The authors are credible and it's a valid WP:RS. Given that the repressive Soviet occupation lasted more than four decades, it is not unusual that the Baltic people would feel it had greater consequences. Feel free to find other WP:RS, but your mere disagreement is not a legitimate reason to remove this WP:RS. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a reason for its inclusion. An author being accredited doesn't mean that all their opinions should be referred to in this article.

This isn't specifically a representation of what Baltic people think as the author is from another country, and again, it's their opinion. It is not hard data. BlueRobot116 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a reason for its exclusion either. It's an WP:RS and it's an academic source. Both regimes are condemned in the Baltic States, but the negative consequences of the Soviet regime were vast and that does reflect. -- Mindaur (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, that is subjective opinion. It doesn't make sense to favourably compare the German occupation in the Baltics to that of the Soviets and to say that the latter was ''harsher'' after admitting that the majority of the large Jewish population in Latvia and Lithuania did not survive the 3 year German occupation. BlueRobot116 (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

All opinions are subjective, that's by definition. Wikipedia represents points of view based on WP:RS, it's just how it works. If you think this subject lacks WP:BALANCE, then you are free to find WP:RS and provide a more balanced view. However, your personal view doesn't disqualify the current WP:RS (also, I don't think the authors are trying to diminish the horrors of the Nazi regime). -- Mindaur (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is shocking to outsiders given the Holocaust and of course only true if you weren't Jewish. However it was quite a prevalent opinion in Lithuania at least. Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

PS - I don't know about "less brutal than elsewhere" mind you. Perhaps less so than Poland, but I don't think that's true if you include places like Holland and Denmark. But the jaw-dropping mortality rate in Lithuania was Jewish and the ethnicities in Lithuania were very segregated. If you were not Polish or Jewish or Roma or Communist it was probably possible to delude yourself that the Nazis would let you live. But in Eastern Europe it was always about Lebensraum. I have not seen that quote in context mind you and may disagree with it when I do, but I have found Yitzhak Arad very balanced. (see if this helps) Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I see my link is broken. I'll unbreak it later, as I am about to leave the house, but it was just intended as a random sample of his work. If anyone is burningly curious he should come up in google. Israeli historian who survived the Holocaust as a Soviet partisan, associated with Yad Vashem and the local Holocaust commission. Elinruby (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with Mindaur on this. The content is based on a reliable source, and the objection is based on WP:IDL. Material with other points of view from other reliable sources is welcome. Doremo (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Repudiating Molotov-Ribbentropp?

I removed In its reassessment of Soviet history that began during perestroika in 1989, the Soviet Union condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Germany and itself.

[1] seems to say that that is exactly wrong Elinruby (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(on re-reading) ok, they did denounce it in 1989 but they were normalizing it in 2019. Leaving it out as a distracting excursion into the weeds for a top-level article. Open to discussion of course Elinruby (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Since we're discussing the Molotov-Ribbentrop act and what the USSR did and didn't recognise in some detail, I think this is a relevant fact. What happened in Russia in 2019 is hardly relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

why would what they did in 1989 be any more relevant? Elinruby (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

probably I should have mentioned that this was in the lede, which is already cluttered: The Baltic states' governments themselves, the United States and its courts of law, the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentropp Pact. Along with a reference after every item on that list. I don't mind discussing 1989 further down the page; maybe we already do and if so great, but also if so, 2019 becomes relevant as well. 13:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I see you already restored the sentence, but just for the record: it is relevant because it shows the inconsistency (in justification and/or moral judgement of the act). Thanks for adding the reference. -- Mindaur (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Nod, I understood after the fact that their position changed over time. I got sucked into some dramah but I do intend to further reference this article. FWIW based on what I know right now, it's pretty accurate fwiw. About the Soviet historical narrative. Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It should be none or both, just one is cherrypicky—blindlynx 16:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Kind of thinking that in the lede we should just say that there was the pact, and all the reactions should go further down. Because now we don't have the Russian/Soviet reaction but we do have everyone else's. I am going to let that sit a day or so as I go through the article again then come back to it. (I've done that a couple times already but I wasn't looking at structure or readability, more like facts and overt bias) Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

works for me —blindlynx 21:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Alaexis_¿question? 23:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

so repudiation is already mentioned in the subsection titled "Soviet point of view", along with a cn tag. I am going to replace that with the above citation then update from that same source to include the un-repudiation in 2019. Everyone ok with that?

Elinruby (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Overcite triage

The History of the Baltic States by Kevin O'Connor ISBN 0313323550 Afaik there's nothing wrong with this reference but the citation is incomplete, the title is generic, and there are six others behind that sentence. No objections to it being fleshed out and returned to the article somewhere. Elinruby (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Point of the article

The very idea of having a common article for these occupations is very dubious. They were quite distinct in a huge number of ways and pursued very different policies. There were repressions in both cases, but the parts of the population targeted by the repressions and the methods of the repressions were very different (not to mention that there were also great differences within the Soviet period). The status of the Baltic states themselves was extremely different in the two cases, since the Soviet Union kept distinct republics as official national homelands for the respective nations, with the states maintaining their national cultures and using their national languages as official ones, whereas Germany just incorporated them all indiscriminately into Reichskomissariat Ostland, a single colony openly and officially intended for settlement and rule by Germans, without any titular status for the local nationalities. The only point of lumping these periods together into a single period of 'occupation' seems to be to imply that the Soviets were basically the same as the Nazis (or worse, as the current mainstream Baltic view seems to be). You may consider both equally evil, but that does not make them the same phenomenon. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)