Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 8

A couple of non-sources

First, a short review of Mälksoo's book by a scholar of international law. He very clearly states "Mälksoo established the unlawfulness of the Soviet annexation, finding that it actually constituted occupation under the laws of war." The whole review is here.

Second, a doctoral dissertation by Stephen Kūhiō Vogeler [1] ""For your freedom and ours" The prolonged occupations of Hawai`i and the Baltic States", full download here. It has a nice discussion about international laws related to occupation of the Baltic states.

--Sander Säde 08:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re review on the Mälksoo's book. The latter is a secondary source itself, so I don't see why cannot we use it directly. In other words, the review provided by you is redundant. In addition, the review does not state the events were an occupation. The term "illegal annexation" is also widely used there.

Re: "The prolonged occupations of Hawai`i and the Baltic States". The title speaks for itself: I doubt anyone will seriously discuss a legality of annexation of Hawai'i.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read the headline of the section again.

The review asserted that Mälksoo's conclusion was "occupation under the laws of war". Which hopefully will end the bickering about it now.

As for the Hawai`i thesis, the author successfully defended his thesis - and University of Hawaii is fairly highly regarded, as far as I know. But, like I already said, it is mostly interesting because of the discussion about the international law related to the occupation of the Baltic states.

--Sander Säde 07:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar

I suggest a template: Template:Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar. It should be neutral, unite different articles but it needs some articles to be created. Comments? Suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Baltic–Soviet relations should be in the background section, not aftermath. Instead, there should be Latvia-Russia relations, etc. --Illythr (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Peltimikko (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Added "Under Soviet rule" and other changes. Peltimikko (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I just wanted to thank User:Igny for keeping up attaching such a colorful tag to this article.[2], [3], [4] [5]. This really makes the article stand out! Otherwise the reader might pass by thinking its something boring without even noticing it, but now with such an intriguing eye candy on top of it the article really draws attention! Good job User:Igny!--Termer (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, Termer. Please do not hesitate to add appropriate tags to any of the articles which, as you think, deserve to "stand out". (Igny (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

I either do not see why do we need the neutrality tag. Could someone explain, please? Peltimikko (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In short, annexation =/= occupation. For a longer story, see all the discussion about the title above. (Igny (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

If I understood correctly, the problem is the title, not the content? Or both? Peltimikko (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem appears to be the fact that they do not match, as the article discusses events beyond the concept of Occupation of Baltic States. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the next logical step would be to split the article accordingly (and here I actually agree with Illythr's observation above). I am open to suggestions on the best way to do that. It's a pity that my opponents in their zeal to preserve the article in the current state did not agree with a compromise of simply renaming the article to widen its scope. I offered the compromise in good faith, and was really surprised that it was shot down. (Igny (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

Splitting the article has been proposed by several users including the administrator (GedUK ) who closed the last request to move. It would be really a big step forward. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be a really big step forward turning Wikipedia into the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, I completely agree!--Termer (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Neutrality and objectivity is often in the mind of the reader as well as the writer. This entire article on the "Occupation of the Baltic states" focuses on the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Why is there NO treatment of regional history prior to the Soviet Union? The territory of this region has along and checkered past, including under the Russian Empire dating back several centuries. The use of the term "occupation" clearly reflects both the views of readers and writers and may not always reflect all of the facts at specific times in history. As an example beyond this region, there are those who would characterize two centuries of Georgia within the Russian Empire as "occupation" when, in fact, Georgia chose to join the Russian Empitre at a point in its history.Moryak (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether Georgia “in fact” chose to join Russia or not is a different matter. The legal definitions of occupation that can be applied to the cases like the Baltic states & the USSR were not there in the 18th or 19th century. It is a sad truth, that war, too, was once something completely legal. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Split suggestions

A possible way to go is to create major articles on

• Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic States
• Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany
• Legal continuity of the Baltic states (move diplomatic efforts, recognition issues, European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States to appropriate sections there) Done, needs a cleanup
• Independence of Baltic states (indepenence periods, struggle for independence, gaining independence in 1990s)

and more articles on

• Soviet-Baltic relations
• Russia-Baltic relations
• European Union-Baltic relations

(Igny (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

I partly agree, but the titles should be more concrete. A period 1940-1944 should include three occupations: First Soviet, Nazi and Second Soviet. However, events after 1944 occupation should be limited to somewhere. Maybe there could be two major articles. Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states (pediod 1940-1944) and Baltic states under Soviet rule (period 1944-1991). Other option is to change the content of the current article to emphasize less events after the Soviets had finished resistance (about period 1944-1956), and give very little attention to period 1956-1991. Peltimikko (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: " A period 1940-1944 should include three occupations: First Soviet, Nazi and Second Soviet." If you want to combine all of that into one article, the best way to do that would be to extend the period to 1945 (a fall of the Courland Pocket) and to name the article The Baltic States during the World War II.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, according to Mälksoo who has been quoted so many times here the occupation lasted until 1991 + according to M'lksoo illegal annexation= occupation.
For the beginners in the Baltic history I can also recommend reading Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture, ISBN 9781576078006 on page 80 there is a chapter on Soviet Occupation 1944-1985 followed by The Singing Revolution (1985-1991). Most strange is a suggestion give very little attention to period 1956-1991? Why? this is the period when

• in 1960, 1963 and in 1987 the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly condemned the illegal annexation and the 'military occupation' of the Baltics and affirmed that the majority of governments of the world had not approved it. [6]
• in 1965-1966 the US Senate abd the House of Representatives unanimously approved a resolution according to which "the Soviet Union had robbed the Baltic peoples by force of their right to self-determination..."
• on January 13, 1983, the EC parliament almost unanimously approved the decision, which condemned the Soviet Union having carried out " the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral (baltic) countries. The annexation to the USSR was declared illegal under international law. etc.--Termer (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Termer, I think you are terribly confused. This is not a vote. Besides, your arguments have very little relevance to what is discussed here. (Igny (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm not voting, I just laid out the facts, despite the opinions of some editors here who'd like to get rid of this article by splitting it up into bits and pieces, there are WP:RSources out there written on the whole subject and therefore I naturally oppose the "Split suggestions".--Termer (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You laid no facts, just your (wrong) interpretation of the reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your opinion Paul. Just that I do not ever interpret any sources on Wikipedia but just cite what they say.--Termer (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. That is exactly what all POV pushers here claim. (Igny (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Let's not forget one user, who pushes his POV heaviest of all, despite lack of knowledge on the topic ("look at what Soviets did, they rigged elections!!!") --Sander Säde 07:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Article readable prose size is now 37KB. According to the WP:SIZERULE, articles under 40KB should not be split based on size alone.

I fail to see a reason to split the article into so many pieces - it would not help user in any way whatsoever, it would only fragment the topic. As the scope of the article is from the start of Soviet occupation (including prelude) up to the end of second Soviet occupation, there is very little that is possible to exclude without forcing user to move between pages to keep up with the content.

I see only few sections that could be split into separate articles - one is the Nazi occupation, which has its own sub-article already. The presentation of Nazi occupation could be reduced in the current article further, rewriting it into two or three small sections. Another section is Legal continuity of the Baltic states - while it is needed and a lot of it is very relevant to the Soviet occupations, it could be spun off into sub-article, like Peltimikko suggested.

As for sources - Termer was right, when he asserted that the most in-depth treatment of the topic found it to be an occupation. We have a tertiary source which confirms it to be so. Of course, we can simply write to Mälksoo and ask, too - he probably will give a straightforward reply.

If we reduce the scope of the Nazi occupation, we could rename the article Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. We also have already an article Estonia in World War II; however, no Lithuania in World War II or Latvia in World War II, so The Baltic States during the World War II could be created, as suggested by Paul. Note, that its scope would be very different from the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states - one deals with pre-war situation and years 1940-1945, the other with both Soviet occupations and forceful incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union, i.e. from 1939 (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, "mutual defense" agreement) up to 1991 (re-gaining independence).

We also have an article on re-gaining independence - Singing Revolution. However, the article is sorely lacking in many aspects, and creating an umbrella article could be a better course than expanding it.

--Sander Säde 07:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that there is no objection to split Legal continuity of the Baltic states? (Igny (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

I didn't know that no Lithuania in World War II or Latvia in World War II exist so far, and this is an additional argument for creation of the The Baltic States during the World War II article. In my opinion, this would be useful because in actuality the Germano-Baltic, Soviet-Baltic, British-Baltic and Soviet-British relation before 1 Sept 1939 were much more tightly interconnected then many people thinks. Therefore, it is incorrect to discuss the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact separately from the failed Tripartite negotiations. It is also incorrect to discuss the Soviet policy towards the Baltic states separately from Soviet-German relation: it is still unknown whether Soviet expansionism was a primary motive of the invasion, or the invasion was dictated by the national security reasons (probably, wrongly understood). It is impossible to separate massive collaboration of the Baltic citizens with Nazi (including their voluntary participation in the Holocaust) from the Soviet policy in the Baltic states in 1940-41. It is impossible to separate the Soviet policy in re-occupied Baltic states from the 1941-44 events in the rest part of the USSR. All these events are deeply interconnected, so they should be discussed in the same article. The most natural name for such an article is The Baltic States during the World War II.
By contrast, the period of 1945-91, and, especially, the 1955-91 (or even 1955-1985 and 1985-91) differ dramatically from the war time events, and it seems to be incorrect to combine all these events in the same article. In addition, as the comprehensive Malksoo's monograph demonstrates, the issue of the Baltic states' continuity is very complicated and probably even deserves a separate article. In addition, no single terminology exists to describe a legal status of the Baltic states within the USSR. Therefore, it would be correct to discuss all of that in a separate article. To avoid possible problems with "Occupation vs annexation" controversy, it would be better to use a more neutral umbrella terms. My suggestion are The Baltic states under Soviet domination or History of the Baltic states under the Soviet control.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless I hear some objections, I will split a section from this article into main article on Legal continuity of the Baltic states a bit later today. (Igny (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

I support this, however, we should discuss merging European court case article into the same as well. --Sander Säde 14:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please feel free to clean up Legal continuity of the Baltic states, I will let you write the first version of the lead there as well the summary of that article in here. (Igny (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

This is note exactly the best practice, chop up everything and leave the clean up for others to do. In case you really need to edit this article please put some effort into improving it as well. But instead, you let others feel free to clean up the mess?--Termer (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This mess of an article was created long before I came here. And didn't you notice improvements I implemented? So shut up and contribute rather than criticize other editors in bad faith. (Igny (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Actually, Termer is right in this case. If you want to do the split, finish it as well - or restore the old situation. These edits definitely weren't an improvement. --Sander Säde 19:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, if you do not want to contribute, you do not have to. But I will be working on this at my own pace at convenient for me time. (Igny (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Well, if you have no time to improve the article(s), only chop it up and leave the mess behind, the edits should be reverted for now.--Termer (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Says who? WP:DEADLINE says otherwise. And in my view, this split is the best improvement happened to this article in a long time, even if it needs some minor clean up (basically it just needs removing the duped statements and streamlining with other articles). (Igny (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

I looked for a policy which could justify your phrase "should be reverted for now". I see your WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and counter it with WP:PROBLEM. (Igny (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Merge

Baltic states under Soviet rule - time period 1944-1991. The main article 1939-1991 emphasizing 1939-1944. -- Peltimikko

• If that's the case then the article should be named Baltic states under Soviet rule (1944-1991) and shouldn't carry the same content as this article. -- Esemono (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice article size after merge. Lead section shows time period. Both still under development and editing. No need to merge. Extra hands and comments are always needed. Peltimikko (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Baltic states under Soviet rule (1944–1991) Peltimikko (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Article moved/renamed - non-NPOV?

The article Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940) and its associated Talk page have just been moved to Baltic states by the Soviet Union by User talk:102RB with the reason Under International law its not Occupation and Аnnexation. This appears to be an arbitrary and unjustified action as the user provides no other discussion and the link to International law does not shed any light on the matter. The resulting name change itself has become quite vague and ambiguous.

I've tried to undo the move, but as a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia it seems that my user rights don't extend that far, so I'll leave it to others more qualified than myself to deal with the matter. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I undid the move. You're right, a controversial move like that should not be made without a proper RM.radek (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the case of the Baltics is the first case cited in international law which clearly sets out the circumstances of unlawful occupation and annexation. Once again the article is attracting editors who contend there was no occupation, could not be occupied, etc. in support of Soviet propaganda and the official Russian position, with no regard for reputable (and I would also specifically call out non-partisan) scholarship. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Estonian Occupation at Purge (novel)

Hi, I am working on the article for the award winning Finnish novel Purge by Sofi Oksanen, and I hope it to get it to GA or FA status. However, to adequetely do that I would need a decent section on the Soviet Occupation of Estonia. Could someone with some interest/expertise rally two paragraphs summarizing what is available in this article about the Estonian Occupation? Thanks, Sadads (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

POV title

If POV-title tage gets removed again, I would consider it as an unanimous support to rename the article to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states. (Igny (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

Rather than make strange non sequitur threats, how about being constructive and articulate the issues as you see them, backed by reliable sources? --Martin (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just read the archives. My arguments have not changed since March. (Igny (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

@Igny: ah, yes, that annexation and occupation are mutually exclusive, among other personal views you've expressed, none supported by reputable scholarship. If you don't have anything new to say, no new sources to bring to the conversation, there's no justification for the tag. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the talk archives. There is nothing to add, yes, but only because what has been said was more than enough. (Igny (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

I know what's in the archives. It's not a discussion based on a debate of reputable sources. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That is what you think, and you are entitled to your opinion. That is not enough to delete the tag, however. (Igny (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

Personal attacks

@Igny, more than one person disagreeing with you when you can't bring reputable sources to the table to back your POV is not a tag team. Removing tags you put on articles with no discussion before-hand is not edit-warring. Please limit your comments to content and refrain from personal attacks. Edit summaries such as this: "You both have to understand that while you are welcome to be back to editing controversial articles, you are NOT welcome back to edit-warring and team-tagging)" are not constructive. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the tag without resolving the underlying issue is not constructive either. By "more than one person" do you mean Martin and yourself? I hope you did not forget Sander. Oh wait, do you mean that Sander did not keep you up to date with all the "discussion" which occurred here a few months ago? (Igny (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

Your inventory of past content grievances based on your personal interpretations not backed by reputable sources is not sufficient to tag articles as POV. You wish to have a constructive relationship, that's possible. You brought up a specific point with regard to a specific bit of content at Occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1944) and I agreed and removed and updated some content. On the other hand, this is now your second personal attack here—and now extending to other editors—while continuing to be completely unhelpful with regard to stating specific objections. If you're experiencing WP déjà vu, don't blame me. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do experience a deja vu. I recall now how editors threw unfounded accusations of personal attacks so much that links to WP:NPA made people laugh like it became a joke. (Igny (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

And I do not understand how my request to NPOV the title by adding mention of widely used word "annexation" to it is unspecific to you. (Igny (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

I rather recall a slew of editors accusing me of personal attacks when I caught them blatantly misrepresenting sources. Perhaps that's what you are remembering? I suppose your characterization of past expressions of concern about personal attacks being laughable means you consider mine laughable as well?

Your title inappropriately mixes occupation and annexation as if they were mutually exclusive as you have specifically argued in the past, and citing only your opinion—no reputable sources, certainly none that can be characterized as non-partisan. As that is an incorrect and unsubstantiated characterization that makes your proposition the "POV"—not "NPOV"—one. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Vocabulary of current Latvian institutions

I was just wondering whether this article is to refer to the vocabulary used by current Latvian institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia? If it is, perhaps this briefing paper could be used as a reference. Please note the use of "Occupation and Annexation". ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

While a lot if not all political entities use the word "annexation", it apparently does not matter to some WP editors, as whatever sources you may come up with which contradict their agenda, are not "reputable". (Igny (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

Referring to the briefing paper of the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia (note it is not called "Museum of the Occupation and Annexation of Latvia") which фĩłдωəß kindly provided, one will note that the paper in discussing the Occupation and Annexation is referring to the period 1939—40, which is not only narrower in scope than the current article, but also excludes the German occupation as well. Note that David Mendeloff states that the official position of the Russian government is that the Soviet Union did not "annex" let alone "occupy" anyone[7]. --Martin (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The title of this article is generally about occupation of the Baltic states (no specific occupation mentioned), and the annexation occured during the first occupation of the Baltic states. I cannot see why this article is not to be Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary of current United States institution

The United States Congress seems to have a firm understanding of how long the occupation and annexation of the Baltic states lasted: "...and condemnation of the illegal occupation and annexation of the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.". Perhaps this reference can be used to reflect current view of the topic at hand? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've indicated, the issue is the contentions that "annexed" means "no longer occupied" whereas the sense you quote is occupied for the full term as well as annexed for nearly the same. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Potato, potato... that is in the eye of the beholder. It can also be annexation(s) followed by occupation(s). ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 09:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states (1940 – 1991)" would work, as the Nazis also annexed the Baltics as administrative units and adding the years indicates both occupation and annexation were in force simultaneously. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In my optics, mentioning the years in the title is redundant - there are no other periods of annexation and occupation. But, that is up to consensus to decide. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 09:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no other way I see to clarify in the title that annexation does not mean the absence of occupation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pēteris, mentioning a span of years in the title does not clarify this either. It is a title only, and there were occupation(s) ( check), annexation(s) ( check) and we are talking about the Baltic states ( check). The detailed history is for the article itself. Do we disagree on occupation(s) and annexation(s) taking place during the history of the Baltic states? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Vocabulary of European Parliament

The most striking argument for "annexation" is the difference between the motion tabled by the Baltic representatives and its adopted version. Please note the change of "as well as 48 years under Soviet occupation and terror," to a more neutral "whereas the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic States was never recognised as legal by the Western democracies,". I presented this argument here, but I guess the sources cited were not deemed "reputable" by our esteemed editor, Vecrumba. (Igny (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

And the European Parliament are going to piss on their major energy supplier? There is nothing in the adopted resolution which is incompatible with both occupation and annexation lasting 48 years. Because that phrase is not there, you insist occupation didn't. Really you can do better. Perhaps we should just leave out EU and Russian official pronouncements and stick to reputable scholarship. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. @Igny, I'd appreciate you losing the (my perception) derisive sarcasm and desisting from personal attacks. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Two for tango, remember? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Perhaps we should just leave out EU and Russian official pronouncements and stick to reputable scholarship.. I remember some of you calling Russian POV fringe because it is not well presented in Western scholarship. But when it is a matter of a dispute between Russian claims and Western claims, that arguments of yours is no longer valid. It is akin to calling position B fringe simply because it is not accepted by its opponent A. So when two things are compared, Russian legislature and Western scholarship, I do not think Wikipedia is in a position to compare the weights of these two opposite positions, but it is rather our task to cover them both in a neutral and unbiased manner. And you are clearly against that approach. (Igny (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

No, I myself have written WP content representing the Russian position. What you don't wish to hear that it is not even based on verified facts, based on analysis of circumstances by reputable scholarship. Thank you, however, for clarifying that pronouncements of the Russian legislature deserves equal weight with reputable scholarship because WP is not in a position to "weigh" something--when in fact no such weighing is required, only the creation of reputable content. Why do rules of encyclopedic article writing which prevent giving equal weight to pseudo-science as to science not apply to prevent giving equal weight to pseudo-(as in fake) history as to reputably recounted history based on verified fact? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There are very different ways to "represent the Russian position". One example is the lede of the State continuity of the Baltic states, which thanks to efforts of a couple of impartial editors was quite neutral. The other is creation of redirects like the Myth of 1939—40. (Igny (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

ReBecause that phrase is not there, you insist occupation didn't. Really, you can do better than to resort to straw man arguments. I never insisted that occupation didn't occur. I've insisted that annexation occurred, and I saw no good arguments from you that it didn't. (Igny (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

You've insisted that annexation and occupation are separate, and that once the Baltics were annexed they could no longer be occupied. My editorial position, backed by non-Baltic sources, is that occupation continued regardless of whether the Soviet Union considered them annexed according to Soviet law, it is not that the Soviet Union did not "annex" (according to their contentions) the Baltic states. You insist it's about "claims." I insist it's about scholarship. There is no support that I have found in reputable scholarship that the Baltic states were legally joined to the USSR according to international law, as the Duma (Russian pronouncement) contends—there's not even any question regarding relative representation regarding the merits of the Russian position. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@Philaweb: Igny says Russian pronouncements hold equal claim to historical representation as Baltic claims as well as non-partisan reputable scholarship. I say no. As long as Igny holds to his position—empirically a proxy for the official Russian position, and Igny considers me a proxy for the Baltic position as opposed to representing non-partisan reputable scholarship which happens to support the Baltic position, the dance here shall continue. Editors have been putting opinions into my mouth for years. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand the cause of your confusion now. You seem to mix several separate issues here. Namely

• Did Soviet occupation occur in 1939?
  • There seem to be a universal acceptance that Baltic states were indeed occupied in 1939.
• Were the Baltic states annexed?
  • Contrary to your opinion, there seem to be a universal acceptance that the annexation indeed took place.
• Did occupation last for decades (concurrently with the annexation) or it ended when the annexation was accepted de-facto by most of the countries?
  • It is open to debate, no universal view there
• Was the annexation legal?
  • It is debatable, while most (but not all) western countries did not recognize the annexation de-jure, they have been accepting it de-facto for years. Also results of Yalta, Potsdam, and Helsinki meetings were open to wide interpretation with regard to the international de-jure recognition
• When Germany occupied USSR in 1941, was occupation of the Baltic republics a separate event?
  • No it was not, although it is portrayed here as such
• When the Red Army liberated the USSR, and in fact the whole eastern Europe from fascism, did they liberate the Baltic republics/states?
  • No universal view, it is one of the points of contention between us at the other related article, and in fact, between Baltic states and Russia in general

I hope it would clear some things (Igny (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

@Igny: If it were only as simple as my being "confused." I'll be busy the next few days, you can think over your response.

• Did Soviet occupation occur in 1939?
  • There seem to be a universal acceptance that Baltic states were indeed occupied in 1939.
    • Soviet pacts of mutual assistance were in 1939
    • Soviet invasion and occupation in 1940
    • German invasion and occupation in 1941
    • Soviet invasion and re-occupation in 1944—it would be liberation only if the Baltics were taken from the Nazis and handed back to the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians; as is well known, the Red Army ripped down the Estonian, not German swastika, flag when they captured Tallinn from the Estonians
• Were the Baltic states annexed?
  • Contrary to your opinion, there seem to be a universal acceptance that the annexation indeed took place.
    • I have never contended annexation did not occur, only that (a) it was illegal and (b) did not end occupation (as you have contended in the past)
• Did occupation last for decades (concurrently with the annexation) or it ended when the annexation was accepted de-facto by most of the countries?
  • It is open to debate, no universal view there
    • The "debate" is less open to debate than you portray
• Was the annexation legal?
  • It is debatable, while most (but not all) western countries did not recognize the annexation de-jure, they have been accepting it de-facto for years. Also results of Yalta, Potsdam, and Helsinki meetings were open to wide interpretation with regard to the international de-jure recognition
    • There is no debate to speak of in reputable international law, although there are several scholars who do point to the unique nature in terms of length of occupation, and so the occupation is both real (as sovereign representatives of the Baltic states continued in exile) and a construct—a choice (same same sovereign representatives were recognized as such until the collapse of the USSR and formal transfer by said representatives of sovereign representation back to local authorities). We are all familiar with the discussions among Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin; in particular, FDR indicating to Stalin the US would not go to war with the USSR over its illegal annexation of the Baltics; I have, of course, also read the Russian pronouncements regarding the Helsinki accords recognizing annexation with reference to recognition of "borders"—no, they were worded specifically to only use "frontiers"; all Helsinki did was to restate what FDR stated originally, that no one was going to invade the USSR to liberate the Baltic states
• When Germany occupied USSR in 1941, was occupation of the Baltic republics a separate event?
  • No it was not, although it is portrayed here as such
    • How was occupation of the Baltic states (not Soviet "republics") by Nazi Germany not a separate event from occupation of internationally acknowledged sovereign territory of the USSR? This is your personal synthesis, nothing more. One act of invasion but of multiple sovereign territories, hence appropriately treated according to sovereign entity invaded.
• When the Red Army liberated the USSR, and in fact the whole eastern Europe from fascism, did they liberate the Baltic republics/states?
  • No universal view, it is one of the points of contention between us at the other related article, and in fact, between Baltic states and Russia in general
    • There is a clear universal view of diametric opposites: Soviet and official Russia = "liberation" with no mention, ever, of the initial Soviet invasion in 1940, only the "Great Patriotic War" after Germany attacked the Soviet Union; everyone else = re-invaded, re-occupied. If Stalin hadn't already invaded the Baltics, killed or deported endless thousands upon thousands, to the point that people initially hailed invading Nazis as liberators (that was a week after the first Soviet mass deportations), the propaganda about "liberating" the Baltics from Hitler's fascist clutches would play better.

And once again, I'm not just representing a so-called Baltic claims here. I hope this clarifies some of your misconceptions regarding my position and points out some of the errors (I believe) in your historical interpretation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A major point of contention here was our debate over whether the annexation occurred. So if you agree now that the annexation indeed took place, then we really argued about nothing and just wasted our time here. I can just go ahead and rename the article to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states to fully describe what this article is about, so do I have your permission to do that or not? If not, the pov-title tag will stay indefinitely per my arguments and per your own admission with regard to our perpetual dance above. We seem both to exhaust our arguments, and I see no other resolution to the pov-title issue short of renaming the article. I see no problem if you take your time thinking the issue over. (Igny (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic states would be fine. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That is fine by me too, but it is somewhat of a tautology, since illegal annexation == occupation under international law. --Martin (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides tautology, the proposed title inclines that occupation somehow was legal since annexation specifically is defined as illegal. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 00:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any such inclination, given that occupations are usually performed by external hostile forces, whether it was legal or not is generally considered irrelevant. --Martin (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Occupation — Annexation

While looking at the vocabulary of European Parliament or the US Congress or the Russian Duma may in some ways be useful, at the end of the day these institutions are political institutions and their declarations are political in nature and are to some degree influenced by pragmatic political considerations for both international and domestic consumption.

What we should be doing is to look at what the scholars are saying in peer reviewed publications. The problem with Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states (and this all has be argued before by others) is that generally the act of annexation is seen as the end point of occupation, and thus limit the scope of the article to the period of 1939—40. The most cursory glance at the scholarly literature will show that is not the case, the literature argues that the annexation was illegal, therefore occupation continued beyond 1944. --Martin (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if you want to keep this title, POV title tag stays, it is as simple as that. There is a simple counter-argument to your point here. What you and the "scholarly literature" argue with regard to occupation and annexation can be easily discussed in a neutral and non-partisan way in an article named "occupation and annexation...". At the same time the opposite POV can not be discussed in any reasonable and meaningful way in an article with such a biased title. Thus the current title is POV and will remain POV, for you did not provide a single argument to the contrary. (Igny (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Your argument has no rational basis. The official political position of the Russian government was that the Baltic states were not annexed, so I am unsure how adding "annexation" to the title makes it less "biased" in your view. You still haven't brought any specific academic source to the table to back your contention, while I and others have brought plenty of specific cites in support. --Martin (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view comes first in Wikipedia, so let's get it straight first. How about, for a fresh start, we cast aside all government-related statements and get an agreement between the two sides on which sources we both regard as apolitical reliable neutral ones? My opening would be D.A. Loeber (2001) "Forced incorporation: International Law Aspects of the Soviet Takeover of Latvia in 1940" in R. Clark, F. Feldbrugge, S. Pomorski (eds) International and National Law in Russia and Eastern Europe as peer-reviewed by a team of leading legal specialists from the Russian Federation, North America, and Western Europe, and Lauri Mälksoo (2003) Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR as peer-reviewed by the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights. Can anyone put forward a solid source arguing against these works? Otherwise we should advance by examining the usage of terms in the works, and adjust the article accordingly. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do these works, in detail:

1. cover all treaties (bilateral, conventions, etc.) which all were party to?
2. review the subject matter with regard to the constitutions of the Baltic states?
3. document and consider the circumstances of the "election" of the parliaments which supposedly expressed popular opinion when they requested incorporation with the USSR; additionally, with respect to #2 above, were the parliaments authorized under the constitution to request such incorporation regardless of the circumstances under which they came to power?

The issue I have seen is where sources discuss theories of international law and apply them to acts of occupation and then apply a general conclusion they have made to the Baltic states without fully considering the details of the Baltic situation. I should mention I did read excerpts of Mälksoo's work a long time ago, unfortunately, I have to apologize that I've forgotten it at this point. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of D.A. Loeber's work and Google book preview is incomplete, so it would be difficult to fully examine it. However I do have a copy of Mälksoo's book (cost me nearly $200). From what I can tell of the former, it appears to be an essay, while the latter was based on a PhD dissertation that Mälksoo defended so it would have been thoroughly peer reviewed as the original dissertation and the subsequent expanded book. So I'm fine with using Mälksoo's book. I also have a copy of Krystyna Marek's book "Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law" which has a thorough treatment of the election process and their legality. --Martin (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

From page 193 of Mälksoo's book: "Not withstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title. The prolonged Soviet occupation of the Baltic States was an unorthodox occupation sui generis, an Annexionsbesetsung (annexation occupation). Until 1991, the Baltic situation resembled in important ways the classical situation of 'occupation': external control by a force whose presence was not sanctioned by international law, and the conflict of interest between the inhabitants and those exercising power over them". --Martin (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

On page 195, in the final paragraph Mälksoo concludes: "Altogether, it is submitted that in the context of the illegal annexation of the Baltic states, occupation theory must be confirmed in principle. However, it must be qualified realistically. Despite the fact of annexation, the presence of the USSR in the Baltic states remained, until restoration of the independence of the Baltic states an occupation sui generis under international law". --Martin (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The key point in here is that the occupation is only considered in "in the context of the illegal annexation". The title of this article however, fails miserably in this regard. (Igny (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Non sequitur. What Mälksoo is saying is that the occupation theory is confirmed because the annexation in 1940 was illegal. Annexation is a single event which would normally end occupation, but since this annexation was illegal, then occupation continues. --Martin (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and those are very fine points to discuss in an article named "occupation and annexation...", things such as legality of the annexation and other some such. (Igny (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Guys, I have a feeling that we already discussed that issue before (including the term "occupation sui generis"). Try to read, e.g., this [8]. As I already pointed out before, the Baltic states' issue is very complex, so every attempt to describe it in few words (e.g. "occupation") create just visibility of truth. If it was an occupation, then why these territories and its population had the same legal status as other part of the USSR? If these states were annexed, why that fact was not recognised by several leading Western states, and how this annexation is consistent with the treaties between the USSR and pre-war Baltic states? If the annexation was illegal, why many states did recognise that? These questions, as well as many others cannot be answered unequivocally, so the truth lies somewhere in the middle: annexation sui generi, illegal annexation, annexation, occupation, all of that do not reflect the situation absoluteky correctly. IMO, in that situation "occupation and annexation" would be the most optimal and least POV-charged title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read the archive, "annexation" is a discrete event while "occupation" is a state that exists for a period of time. Usually that period of "occupation" ends when the event of annexation has been recognised has having legally occurred. I'm still waiting for Igny to explain how adding the term "annexation" makes the title more neutral, given that official Russia denies annexation ever took place. --Martin (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange. Noone is denying annexation took place, even Vecrumba agreed with me above, and now your argument is... ummm what exactly? (Igny (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

@Igny, well, "illegal annexation," and such illegal annexation does not terminate "occupation."

Annexation in the case of countries is defined as (usually) being without the consent of the country being incorporated. The Soviet position, in terms of the word I have seen most, translates as "joined" = acts by and emanating from the Baltic states and not "annexation," that is, not a coercive act by the USSR.

@Paul, "same status" as other republics is a red herring. There were not "many" states that recognized the annexations as de jure, quite frankly, most were Warsaw pact members. International law is quite clear on the illegality of Soviet actions in the Baltics; indeed, the case of the Baltics is precedent-setting in international law. There is no "complexity" here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but, according to Malksoo, only three states didn't recognised annexation neither de jure nor de facto: the USA, Vatican and Ireland. 26 states, including Yugoslavia and China didn't recognise annexation de jure, but recognised it de facto. Such Soviet bloc states as Sweden, Holland, New Zealand and Spain did recognise annexation both de jure and de facto, whereas Finland and some other states had no position on that account at all.
Re red herring, please, specify what was the difference between the status of Estonia and, e.g., Moldavia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's curious. According to Legal continuity of the Baltic states, "Sweden ... had never taken a formal position on the recognition of the annexation until 1989 ... in 1989 Sweden declared that it had not recognised the annexation of the Baltic States to the USSR as de-jure." Also, Spain "maintained semi official diplomatic relations, had no diplomatic relations with USSR until 1977. Neither de jure nor de facto recognition accorded." There is also no mention of the Netherlands under the "recognition" column, and I don't know why a NATO country would recognise the occupations. The quoted statements are sourced, though I personally lack the texts they come from, so I can't cross-check, but I'm scratching my head as to where you pulled your facts from, Pavel. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we not go off on a tangent. Can yourself or Igny explain to me why the addition of the term "annexation" makes the title more neutral when official Russia disputes that there was never any annexation at all. Igny claims above "Noone is denying annexation took place", but that is exactly what the Russian foreign ministry has done. They are not claiming annexation was legal, they are claiming no annexation took place at all. --Martin (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The most neutral wording of this article's title would be History of the Baltic states, History of the Baltic states (1939–1991) or History of the Baltic states (1940–1989) or similar, since we all know that about half of the history consisted of occupation and annexation. Lettonica (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be to general for the article discussing the activities of two foreign superpowers in the region. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have read in Finnish sources, Estonia just seezed to exist in summer 1940. Finnish historiography use a term (illegal) annexation. A term occupation is not used events after summer 1940 (except German occupation). Peltimikko (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know to what degree self-censorship may have played a role in Finnish historiography? In Sweden there were published sources like the one by Olof Bergstrom, Gerd Elmerskog and Åke Finnpers titled Ockupationen av Baltikum 40 år (40 Years of Baltic Occupation) in 1980.--Martin (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Paul and Peltimikko: Our common aim should be to distance the discussion from the practice of individual countries towards a NPOV.

Re: Igny Noone is denying annexation took place, even Vecrumba agreed with me above, and now your argument is... ummm what exactly? These are all fine points. Indeed, noone is denying that. And the point of excluding the term annexation from the title is not entirely clear to me from the mass of arguments that has went down along the years. Perhaps it is WP:COMMONNAME?

Anyway, I have now gone through Mälksoo's book and he is actually much more certain about the occupation of the Baltic States than has been presented on these talk pages. Here are the relevant passages: [However, not every annexation could legally terminate a regime of occupation. Pursuant to the underlying concept of the Hague Regulations, premature annexations, i.e. annexations carried out durante bello, were considered illegal and without the desired international legal effects.] He continues in the chapter titled: Conclusions: International rules binding the USSR during its occupation (illegal annexation) of the Baltic States: "If the prolongued application of the Hague or Geneva law of occupation would be challenged in the Baltic case, this would be so for other reasons - such as the very fact of the annexation (as opposed to 'mere' occupation without the animus to annex), or the extraordinary duration of illegal rule..." and "From the constructivist perspective, however, two issues must be distinguished: the question whether the legal status of the USSR in the Baltic States was that of the occupier; and the question which international standard should be used to evaluate Soviet policies. The first question is easier to answer than the second. Since the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States in 1940 lacked any ground in international law, and a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval of Soviet conquest, the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic States implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such was, as a matter of international law, not terminetated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was reestablished in 1991. Notwithstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

One point- I am not quite sure how adding 'annexation' makes the title any more neutral. But let's not lose sight of the fact that this article also covers the German occupation as well. As far as I know, there was no 'annexation' there, so the use of the word in the title of the article would be a bit inconsistent with the material presented, or? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:I am not quite sure how adding 'annexation' makes the title any more neutral. Good question. If Mälksoo says it is "correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation'" then why cannot we use this as the title? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: "History of..." as a title, we already had an entire mountain of discussion of that some years ago, that is a much larger topic; indeed, it would POV to make that the title of this article as it would imply that the entire history of the period of occupation was only about the occupation and nothing else of significance occurred during all that time. And we already have the Latvian SSR article for "History of..." for the period of Soviet occupation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Lothar, actually, you are correct, under Nazi Germany the Baltics were administered territories, however, not formally annexed to Germany. My use of "annex" with regard to Germany was not technically correct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That is yet another a good argument in favor to split the article into Occupation and annexation of Baltic states by Soviet Union and Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany, or some such. (Igny (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

Not really, as it loses all continuity, the Estonians fighting German and Soviet troops on two fronts, etc. The whole point of one article is that the Baltics were continuously occupied (aside from fleeting glimmers of hope). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources which discuss continuity of the occupation without mentioning annexation? The scholarly claims of the lasting and continuous occupation are either discussed in context of annexation and lack of its de-jure recognition by the Western states. The only cases of "continuous occupation" claims outside the context of annexation I have seen were merely political opinions of various commentators and "personal contentions" of certain WP editors. (Igny (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

Keep it simple

Put another way, with regard to the actions of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany regarding Baltic territory, I see no reason to complicate the current title, "Occupation of the Baltic states." There is no added value to expanding the title to include things associated with either Nazi or Soviet occupation and therefore no need to expand the title. This entire controversy over what the article should really be named is a red herring. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The current title is biased, so keeping it along with the POV-title tag is by no means "simple". Unless you think that adding a single word to the title and removing the tag is actually more complicated than having a shorter title with the POV-title tag.(Igny (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

You keep stating the current title is biased, but you haven't explained how the addition of the word "annexation" makes the title less biased when official Russia claims the Soviet Union did not annex the Baltic state. Consensus is not unanimity, if your don't offer arguments and specific sources, and avoid answering questions, other participants may come to believe your application of the POV tag is disruptive. --Martin (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, if "occupation" is POV (that is, not so nice with regard to the Soviet Union), then "annexation"—an act without the consent of the party being annexed—is more POV (even less nice with regard to the Soviet Union) as the Baltic states and reputable scholarship say "illegally annexed" and the Soviet/Russian version is the Baltic states "joined" of their own volition. There's also the problem that Germany did not annex the Baltic states during its occupation of same. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Martin, and Vecrumba's even more POV. It has been repeatedly demonstrated to you that annexation is a neutral term (used and acknowledged by every party involved!) and its use in the title opens a debate with regard to its legality. On the other hand the (lasting) occupation is not a neutral term as it presents one POV as a historical fact, which it is not, and its exclusive use in the title prevents any reasonable discussion with the opposing views. (Igny (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

What opposing viewpoint? We have Russian scholars like Professor and Dean of the School of International Relations at St. Petersburg (Leningrad) State University, Konstantin K. Khudoley who characterises it as an occupation[9]:

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

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

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

The only opposing viewpoint is a political viewpoint of the Russian government that claims the Soviet Union did not annex the Baltic states. On the other side we have scholars, including Russian, who agree that occupation occurred. You are asking us to give equal weight to the opinion of politicians to that of international scholars. That is not how NPOV works. --Martin (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As I already wrote, majority of sources agree that occupation did take place (although Google scholar gives 3,410 results for ""Baltic states" Soviet annexation -occupation" [10], and 10,600 results for ""Baltic states" Soviet occupation -annexation" [11], so the majority is not overwhelming). The point is, however, that, whereas Germany treated the Baltic states as subordinated territories and didn't annex it, the USSR considered the Baltic states as a part of the USSR, and did annex them, thereby granting to them the status identical to all other Soviet republics. In the latter case annexation did take place, although legality of this act was not recognised by majority of foreign states. Therefore, it is simply incorrect to use the same terminology for the periods of German and Soviet dominance in the Baltics. Therefore, if we want to combine both these two periods in one article, the title should be more generic, something like "Baltic states under foreign dominance".--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is purely OR. Can you show a source that argues that way? Are you actually questioning Dr. Mälksoo's works where he explicitly concludes illegal annexation => occupation of the Baltic States? Not everything different must be called with a different name. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What concretely is OR? Please, note, that no reliable sources exist that explicitly explain what should be and what should not be written in Wikipedia, or which title is the most neutral, so to use a good search engine to decide what term is the most neutral by no means can constitute OR, because I do not add any statements that are not explicitly present in the sources, but discuss the most neutral article's title.

Re Mälksoo, the very fact that such a detailed and comprehensive monograph has been devoted to this issue serves as an indication that the issue is non-trivial and very complex. And, by the way, his work was focused on the issue of continuity of the Baltic states, not on terminology, which played an optional role in his work; his point was that since the annexation was illegal (mostly due to contradiction of that step to the treaties signed by young USSR with the Baltic states on the eve of their existence, not to those times' international laws), and since it had some traits of occupation ("occupation sui generis"), we can speak about state continuity. However, Mälksoo uses the term "annexation" in his monograph more frequently than "occupation" (sometimes as "occupation and annexation", i.e. "occupation with subsequent annexation"). Therefore it would be OR to omit the term "annexation", since this, as well as many other sources use it very extensively.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as the German occupation is included together with the Soviet ones (which it should be, for continuity's sake), it is simply incorrect to use the term "annexation" in the title. If we wish to discuss a completely new title, that is one thing, but "annexation" should not be part of the title of the article as it stands. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You probably noticed that my proposal was that the title should be more general to embrace these two different events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. You believe occupation and annexation are two discrete events. However in the context of the title, "occupation" is a state or period of control. The term "annexation" is an act or an instance of annexing. The juxtaposition of the term "annexation" in the title changes the context of the term "occupation" and its meaning becomes an act or an instance of occupying rather than as a state or period of control. --Martin (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, as I already wrote, the word "annexation" in the title of the article dealing, among other events, with German occupation is misleading, and in that sense I agree with Lothar von Richthofen. However, you must remember that annexation terminates occupation, because, whereas the state of military occupation implies that the occupied territory is under the rule of martial laws (and the status is regulated by Hague conventions), the annexation changes the status of the territory, and from this moment on this territory is being administered not by military authorities, but by civilian authorities. Since no military administration existed in the annexed Baltic states, since the population was treated as Soviet citizens, and the life was regulated by ordinary Soviet laws, this state could not be described as "occupation". These territories were illegally annexed, and, to reflect this fact Mälksoo coined the term "occupation sui generis", which obviously is something different than just "occupation".

In any event, since I do not propose to add the word "annexation" in the title, let's stop these unneeded debates. My proposal is to develop more general title, and I propose "Baltic states under foreign dominance" as a starting point. Do you have any comments on that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that advances the view "Since no military administration existed in the annexed Baltic states, since the population was treated as Soviet citizens, and the life was regulated by ordinary Soviet laws, this state could not be described as "occupation""? Because the only published view found so far, that of Russian politicians, is that no annexation took place at all. So arguing that in the case of the Baltic states "annexation" ended occupation is not an argument supported by the Russian government. --Martin (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

An opinion of Russian politicians (as well as of any others) is a primary source. As a rule, we deal with secondary sources. These sources clearly tell that these states (more correctly, their territories) were annexed, although legality of this step is disputable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We've been through all this numerous times before, occupation takes place when the rightful sovereign authorities are prevented from exercising authority, that authority being usurped by the occupying power. "Military" is a red herring. All three Baltic states took action to vest their sovereign authority in exile; all such holders of sovereign authority formally transferred that authority back to local Baltic authorities upon dissolution of the USSR. Occupation only ends when full and free exercise of sovereignty is returned to the rightful authorities. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In English, "occupation" refers to several different terms, however, its only meaning that is relevant in our case is the Webster's #3 [12]:

• a  : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : seizure;
• b  : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force
• c  : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it.

In other words, whereas the "a" contains no reference to usurpation (in that sence, the Estonians, as well as all other people, occupy the land they live in), both "b" and "c" contain a direct reference to the military force.

With regard to "red herring", let me point your attention at the fact that, whereas I generally considered the former members of some notorious list as my opponents, I sympatised them, because they, as a rule are able to conduct a discussion politely, are prone to arguments and frequently put forward quite reasonable arguments. You probably noticed that during last year I tried not to edit the most sensitive articles having a relation to the Eastern European issues, and I never supported any administrative action having a connection to the members of this list. I would like to preserve my generally good impression about you and your colleagues. Please, do not disappoint me. Try to be civil, please. (This is not a warning, by the way).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re your edit summary (" Paul your contention of annex terminates occupation is your personal contention not grounded in international law"), have you read Mälksoo's monograph? Unfortunately, I have only Russian and Estonian translations, not English original, however, if you want I can e-mail the pdf to you. I also strongly advise you to read the archive (you can find the link in this section); among others arguments, it contains a quote from the David M. Edelstein's article "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail" (International Security, Summer 2004, Vol. 29, No. 1, Pages 49-91. doi:10.1162/0162288041762913, MIT press), which I re-reproduce below:

"The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism. Annexation denotes the permanent acquisition and incorporation of territory into the annexing state’s homeland. Colonialism may end at some point, but this intention may not be clear at the onset of a colonial mission. Although colonial powers may insist that they are on a civilizng mission to foster the eventual independence of a colonized territory, they are frequently willing to stay indeanitely to achieve these goals. This distinction is what makes successful occupation so difficult: in an occupation, both sides—the occupying power and the occupied population—feel pressure to end an occupation quickly, but creating enough stability for the occupation to end is a great challenge. Occupations are also distinct from short-term interventions in which the occupying power exerts little political control over the territory in which it has intervened."

----Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My short response is that there are many things we can personally contend apply to the situation of the Baltic states. That is all WP:SYNTHESIS. I've already had extensive debates with Vlad Fedorov about that issue whenever he started quoting extended passages from reputable sources on international law. Unless a source specifically discusses the Baltic states, it is not applicable because of their unique historical situation, as numerous sources which do deal with them, specifically, point out. As for your side comment on civility, I'm not aware of anything in our past debates to indicate we can't stay on topic, and I appreciate your restraint while were unable to debate EE topics. (But how I took it...) Try to not accuse me again. Not commenting on my civility would have been not an accusation. Enough said. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re SYNTH. Your statement was quite unequivocal: "...occupation takes place when the rightful sovereign authorities are prevented from exercising authority, that authority being usurped by the occupying power. "Military" is a red herring." You have to concede that nothing in this statement suggested that we discussed the Baltic states specifically: this statement, as well as your edit summary, was about occupation in general, therefore it would be quite logical to provide the refs to general reliable sources. With regard to your Unless a source specifically discusses the Baltic states, let me remind you, that, although I fully agree that this case is very complex, no specific terms have been developed to describe this particular case, and majority sources tell about "occupation and annexation" (or "occupation and subsequent annexation"), although most of them agree that that annexation was illegal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The case of the Baltics is discussed using "standard" terms such as occupation, annexation, legality, sovereignty, etc. My initial comment was in response to yours here on talk (continuous military control is not a prerequisite for occupation). My subsequent point is that we need to stick to scholarly sources which specifically deal with the case of the Baltic states and remove our personal interpretations as well as contentions of applicability of sources not specifically about the Baltics. Then what is left is what should be represented in the article. Anything else (including parliamentary pronouncements) is an opinion. Best! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, your argument about continuous military control is a general argument, therefore it needed in a general answer. You got such an answer and instead of throwing accusations in SYNTH you have to concede you were not right.

Re the Baltic states specifically, see below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, you say: "As a rule, we deal with secondary sources. These sources clearly tell that these states (more correctly, their territories) were annexed, although legality of this step is disputable", please cite a secondary scholarly source that claims this annexation was legal. --Martin (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

By writing that "although legality of this step is disputable" I meant that some sourced claim that annexation was legal whereas others leave this issue beyond the scope. I didn't mean I saw the sources that explicitly claim that the annexation was legal, and I do not want to waste my time in attempts to find them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you need to spend time to find such a source, since it is central to your thesis that military occupations end on the act of (legal) annexation, because it is generally accepted that illegal annexations do no end occupation. --Martin (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

De-jure recognition of the annexation by some states is not enough for you? (Igny (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

De-jure recognition by a state is a political act, I'm asking for a secondary academic source that claims annexation was legal. --Martin (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a secondary source which claims that annexation did not take place? (Igny (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

The issue here is legality; legal annexations end occupation, illegal annexations do not end occupation. --Martin (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no. The idea that illegally annexed territories remain under a control of military forces (this is a definition of "military occulation", because "non-military occupation" is something I never heard of) is something that needs to be proved by a reference to some reliable sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The core of this debate can be worded in Malksoo's own words

The core of the debate is the refusal of the Kremlin to recognise the illegality of the Soviet occupation and annexation of the three Baltic republics in 1940. Almost all countries, historians, and international law scholars confirm the Baltic view that the Soviet ‘incorporation’ of these republics violated international law in force at that time. But the government of the Russian Federation continues to deny this view.

Lauri Mälksoo. Which Continuity: The Tartu Peace Treaty of 2 February 1920, the Estonian–Russian Border Treaties of 18 May 2005, and the Legal Debate about Estonia’s Status in International Law. JURIDICA INTERNATIONAL X/2005 Is this secondary and reliable enough? (Igny (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

1. The territories of the Baltic states (not the states themselves) were annexed by the USSR;
2. That was done forcefully (by means of occupation), and illegally;
3. The fact that this annexation was illegal and forceful does not automatically mean that these states remained under military occupation until 1991.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the quotes make sense only in the context of one of his main conclusions: "...the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic States implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such was, as a matter of international law, not terminetated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was reestablished in 1991. Notwithstanding the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR in 1940, it is therefore correct to speak of their (continued) 'occupation', referring in particular to the absence of Soviet legal title." All of us fully agree that annexation and incorporation took place. However, Mälksoo demonstrates that an illegal annexation does not terminate an occupation and it is therefore entirely correct to speak of the occupation of the Baltic States.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Paul: What concretely is OR?: Both the title promoted by you and the argument behind it. What you are trying to do is to create a middle ground between the Soviet/Russian government POV and the scholarly POV. While I acknowledge your spirit of appeasement, you are supporting a title and a point of view that simply does not exist in neither scientific nor the Soviet/Russian government sources, because the former say the Baltics were illegally annexed => occupied until 1991, and the latter deny any annexation at all. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Annexation" is not an appropriate word for the title of the article in its present form, as the German occupation did not include annexation. If an editor is concerned about the neutrality of the title's wording, he/she should propose an entirely new title instead of tendentiously demanding the insertion of a word which does not apply to all of the article's contents. Sorry to shout, but this debate is not going anywhere and will not ever get anywhere. We need to change our focus and put this absurd bickering over a single word to rest. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The quickest way to end it is to rename it in accordance to NPOV policy. Otherwise the title will remain POV-biased and no shouting can help you here. (Igny (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC))

Mhm, that's nice. Your statement is exceptionally vague and essentially meaningless. I was hoping that other editors would take the hint to let go and move on and perhaps begin discussing new ideas for a title (as Paul had earlier mentioned) rather than clamour uselessly about the term "annexation" (which should under no circumstances be part of this article's title due to the nature of the German occupation), but you seem to have clearly missed my point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather strange statement at the end of a very detailed debate. Your argument is not against use of the neutral term annexation, but for splitting the article into Occupation and annexation of Baltic states by Soviet Union and Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany. This article's main goals is to describe the history of Baltic states under foreign rule, and there are more neutral terms than what is being used here (such as history of Baltic republics under Soviet rule). I would actually support the approach of splitting the article, unless someone provides a very good argument to keep these occupations together. (Igny (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC))

Igny, you repeatedly state that unless the term "annexation" is added the "title will remain POV-biased" without explaining why, despite being asked several times to do so. Some are beginning to wonder if you have any reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jaan makes a very good point that adding such a term conveys an idea that is not actually in the sources when he states "supporting a title and a point of view that simply does not exist in neither scientific nor the Soviet/Russian government sources, because the former say the Baltics were illegally annexed => occupied until 1991, and the latter deny any annexation at all". I don't think there is any consensus in support of your POV tag. --Martin (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we're done here. Arguably, while Russia maintains "you can't occupy what belongs to you" and all, we will keep having these debates. In the future, however, I suggest we refrain from personal interpretations, quoting dictionaries, quoting politicians, etc., and stick to reliable sources dealing with:

• international law AND
• which specifically discuss the case of the Baltic states

so that we can all apply our energies to more useful purposes, and at least keep any such future debates on topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And to Igny's earlier, there is no reputable scholarly debate whether the annexation of the Baltic states was legal. That is simply a version of Soviet history Russia continues to maintain for its own purposes; I won't speculate here on what those might be. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Igny, the last quote you cited from Mälksoo does not support the renaming as it does not say Russia claims the Baltics were annexed. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is no consensus that inclusion of the term "annexation" makes the title any more neutral, therefore it follows that there is no consensus to tag this article as POV on the basis of the absence of the term "annexation" in the title. --Martin (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the word "annexation" is completely inappropriate for this article due to the nature of the German occupation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Igny that the last Lothar von Richthofen's statement could serve as a ground for splitting of this article onto two separate articles, because it tells about two very different events. However, there is one trait that combine these two events: the periods of Soviet and German dominance comprise a continuous period of dependence of the Baltic states. Therefore, the title "Baltic states under foreign dominance" of "Period of dependence of the Baltic states", or something of that kind, would reflect the essence of this article more correctly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now the Baltics were dependents of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? Please present reputable sources that state they were not occupied. What is the rush for milquetoast? There is no basis for splitting the article.

After all, Paul, did you not argue that rape of the women of Germany during/after WWII did not need to be split into separate articles for American and British and French rapes versus Soviet rapes because a rape is a rape? (I'm sure with some effort I could find the diff.) Similarly, an occupation is an occupation. Your appear to argue for joining where you can ameliorate Soviet crimes by conjoining them with American, British, and French, and for separation where you can ameliorate Soviet crimes only my making them disjoint from Nazi crimes which are book-ended, front and back, by Soviet crimes and form a continuity of crimes against the citizenry of the Baltics—which originated with Stalin's and Hitler's pact to divide Eastern Europe. You may, of course, not have been even aware of this dichotomy in your approach—I'm only pointing out the inconsistency. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Occupation, by contrast to rape, is not a physiological act. There is no disputes about what should be considered as "rape" and what should not. Your assertion about motives ("ameliorate Soviet crimes by conjoining them with American, British, and French") is just your assertion. Please, demonstrate, what concretely in my edits contradicted to the reliable sources I used, and how concretely did I misinterpret them. Otherwise, please, refrain from such accusations.

Re separation of Soviet and German crimes. They were really different (Soviet actions were not directed against ant concrete nation, whereas Nazi killed mostly Jews; there were almost no armed resistance to German dominance in the Baltics, and many people even collaborated with occupation authorities, whereas anti-Soviet partisan movement was very strong even after the war; the Germans didn't even attempt to annex the Baltic states, whereas the Soviet did, and these territories had the same legal status in the USSR) and, as a rule they are being discussed in the literature separately. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I regret that I don't even know where to start to pick apart your purely personal construct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Try to start with the analysis of the the sources that discuss German and Soviet occupation together, and compare them with the amount of sources that discuss in details only Soviet occupation/annexation/incorporation (I myself hadn't done this analysis yet, so I cannot tell for sure what the results will be).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reasons against "occupation"?

Before we discuss such a title-change, I would like somebody in the dissenting camp to please outline clearly and civilly the reasons against the current title, that is, reasons why the term "occupation" violates WP:NPOV. "Look at the archives" is not an acceptable response, nor is a meaningless, obfuscatory "adhere to NPOV" response. We need reasons to change the title, not personal opinion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand how and why no one acknowledged all my arguments here. No one have yet addressed those issues.

1. Annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union did occur, every scholar agrees with that
2. Legality of annexation or lack thereof is not grounds for not including the term into the title of an article which discusses the very event of annexation of Baltic states by the Soviet Union.
3. The argument that the occupation of the Baltic republics by Germany did not constitute annexation is just an argument for splitting a separate and non sequitur event from what may constitute a synthesis of ideas in order to come to a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the sources, that is that incorporation of Baltic states into the Soviet Union was the same as occupation of the states by the Nazi Germany. The article in the current form is focused on similarities between these two events while ignoring all the differences.
4. Every aspect of continuity of occupation is or can be covered in every detail in state continuity of the Baltic states.
5. When all these POV issues were brought up for discussion before, whoever argued for neutrality of the word "occupation" used the fact that US officials, EU officials, other international institutions and scholars stated that occupation lasted all the way to 1990. Now for some reason, when the same argument was used for including the term "annexation", you claim that the use of such term by political entities was politically motivated and thus should be ignored. But then the argument that the occupation was lasting until 1990s falls apart for the same reason, that is the political motivation of people who insist on that.
6. Every scholar who insisted on the occupation lasting for decades could not avoid discussing the event of annexation which took place in 1940. The very concept of decades long occupation relies on claims of illegality of annexation. Validity of such claims or their opposite views or their acceptance does not matter, whoever claimed that occupation lasted for decades never rejected the event of annexation.
7. Ignoring views not published in English, such as this article by Simonyan also constitutes breach of neutrality.
8. The fact that Russian officials use the word присоединение (joining, incorporation stressing what in their view was a voluntary event) rather than аннексия (literally, annexation) is a red herring, considering that annexation is one of acceptable translations of the term присоединение
9. Last but not the least. I myself consider annexation as a neutral compromise between the Russian voluntary "incorporation"/"joining" and the Baltic "occupation". How you fail to see the bias in the very word "occupation" is beyond me.

(Igny (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

@Igny, I believe this has all been addressed, however I don't think you're hearing the answers. "Annexation" being the midpoint between joining and occupations is like arguing that a banana is a midpoint between an apple and an orange. Do try to put something forth based on reputable sources; under-representation (per you) of "Russian" language sources does not make the article POV, if they are not reputable accounts of history based on verified facts, they are not encyclopedic except as expressing an opinion as a version of history. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

These argument have not been addressed yet. Attempts have been made to dismiss them. However the arguments have enough merit not to be dismissed and to warrant the POV tag at the moment. (Igny (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

Prove to us all that these arguments "have enough merit not to be dismissed". Consensus, both scholarly and amongst us editors, seems to oppose your views rather firmly. Please don't make claims without support. Even Paul has said that he disagrees with the inclusion of "annexation". It is starting to seem like you are just clamouring about NPOV out of hand and that you really don't have a strong argument based on reputable sources. Perhaps you could start by explaining to us why "occupation" is so blatantly POV? Right now the tag on the article is just starting to look rather disruptive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Prove to us all that these arguments "have enough merit not to be dismissed". Here you have just admitted that you do not have other counter-arguments to my points other than a groundless "they have to be dismissed". Re:Consensus, both scholarly and amongst us editors, seems to oppose your views rather firmly. You are blatantly false in this statement. There is no consensus whatsoever present here. (Igny (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Hogwash. I have admitted nothing of the sort. I am asking you to actually put up a legitimate defence, not just stonewall the rest of us with vague statements of opinion.

From WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate [emphasis mine] concerns raised."; "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." You seem to be the lone voice vehemently vociferating for "annexation", and you have not yet put up a wholly convincing arguement for it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Look. You asked me to provide arguments for the tag. I have done so. Now you asking me to provide arguments to provide my other arguments can not be dismissed. Then what? You will ask me for yet more arguments to prove that my arguments are serious enough not to be dismissed? No. The ball is on your side to prove that you can dismiss my arguments without addressing my concerns, and so far you have miserably failed. Re Consensus. It is not applicable to this polarized debate. I do not see any neutral editors here to prove your point about majority and consensus. (Igny (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

So, for example, Simonyan's blatantly and incontrovertibly false statement that the decision to "join" the Soviet Union was made by the "legitimate" governments of the Baltics, the parliaments of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which had been elected on the basis and in accordance with state law in those countries ("а решение о вступлении в СССР приняли в 1940 году легитимные органы власти - парламенты Латвии, Литвы и Эстонии, избранные на основе существующих в этих странах государственных законов") can at best be presented as an opinion given it is an outright documented lie. Nothing more. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are replies to Igny's points, directly based on Mälksoo's monograph:

1. Agreed but the scholars constantly stress the annexation was illegal.

2. Lack of legality of annexation constitutes occupation hence legitimises the use of the term without the addition of the term 'annexation'.

3. Legally, both the Soviet and German rules in the Baltics were occupations. The legal difference between them is not explicitly stated in any scholarly sources.

4. Don't you think the topic is a core theme of this article?

5. We should rely only on neutral reputable sources.

6. This only proves that "annexation of the Baltic States" is a valid term. What it does not prove is the invalidity of the term "occupation of the Baltic States".

7. No need to get carried away with harsh words. Papers such as Simonyan's article in the International Affairs journal get ignored because they their peer-reviewers are partial in this matter. The editors here have made their best effort to provide neutral sources. I am sure you would either get angry or start laughing if I built my case on sources from journals with Andrus Ansip or Raivis Dzintars on the editorial board. Why do you insult the editors here with biased sources?

8. Surely you knew it was too far fetched? Аннексия - насильственный акт присоединения государством всей или части территории другого государства в одностороннем порядке. Do you think that represents the Soviet/Russian government view on what happened in the Baltics? If not then whose view does it represent? Yours?

9. Yes, well according to WP:OR you need to back your "considerations" and "compromises" up with reliable neutral sources. And Mälksoo does not suit you because although he does not use the term 'occupation' in the titles of his works, he uses it as the proper noun for the event. For example, in his "THE GOVERNMENT OF OTTO TIEF AND THE ATTEMPT TO RESTORE THE INDEPENDENCE OF ESTONIA IN 1944: A LEGAL APPRAISAL" published in Estonia 1940-1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity he uses the term "Second Soviet occupation" to denote the capture of Estonia by the Soviet Union in 1944. So we share our inability to see the bias in "the very word 'occupation'" with the scholars. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Jaan.

1. Good, but no buts.
2. It legitimizes use of the word occupation, it does not legitimize drop of the word "annexation"
3. "Legal definition" is just one of similarities between these events, still no reason to put them under one article. Besides, this argument is not even addressed in this article.
4. Are you saying this article is a coat rack for some other topic entirely?
5. It can not get any more reputable than official declarations and motions by the governmental institutions. Are you questioning the neutrality of the Western governments now?
6. I never said use of "occupation" was invalid. Lack of use of "annexation" is appalling though.
7. That is it. An RS was ignored, period.
8. That is why Russia is against use of such a term. That is why I claim it is perfectly neutral.

(Igny (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

The problem rejection of the Simonyan's article is that by formal criteria it is more or less reliable source. Of course, the "Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'" ("[International affairs" http://en.interaffairs.ru/editors.php]) is not as reliable source as, e.g. "American historical review", however that does not allow us to dismiss it completely: by contrast to the USSR, Russia is not a totalitarian state, and in that sense there is no significant difference between it and other European countries. Generally speaking, the situation when the works of some scholars are being dismissed because someone believes they are false is hardly acceptable and will lead to an impasse. If you dismiss the article written by R. Simonyan (D. Sc. (Sociology), professor, head of the Russian Center for Baltic Studies, RAS Institute of Sociology), does that mean that you reserve a right to arbitrary dismiss the works of any Russian scholar you don't like? And why such an approach cannot be extended on other European countries, e.g. Romania, Poland, Estonia?

Of course, you may argue that the article has been written in Russian, and English sources are preferable in Wikipedia. I am ready to accept this argument, however, could you please explain me why some WP articles are full of the sources written in Estonian, Latvian, Polish? What makes the sources written in these languages more reliable that the sources written in Russian? In addition, some the Simonyan's works have been published in English, for instance, this one [13].

I cannot say I fully agree with Simonyan's writings. However, by formal criteria, his works are not less reliable than the works of most Baltic scholars, therefore, the claim that his statements are "blatantly and incontrovertibly false" is just a personal PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА's opinion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, you leave me incredulous. There is no reputable scholarly source that does not describe the parliaments of the Baltic states as illegally and fraudulently (per Soviet records!) installed puppets of Soviet authority. Don't smear reputable scholarship by suggesting it's just Vecrumba's opinion and don't insult me by implying I just pontificate. My contention has ZERO to do with Baltic versus Russian partisanship. Of all editors, I expect better from you than purporting this is about reduction ad opinionem, Baltic versus Russian. And let's stick to the topic at hand without wringing our hands over generalizations and implications over languages, countries, and all sorts of other cases. Personally, I don't care what language a source is written in as long as it is reliable. THAT is the bar. Simonyan is clearly unreliable with regard to this particular topic as his position is demonstrably and incontrovertibly and per SOVIET RECORDS incorrect. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You should have noticed that I wrote "I cannot say I fully agree with Simonyan's writings." In addition, after re-reading the article again I came to a conclusion that it is hard to distinguish between the own Simonyan's opinion, and the opinions he refers to. Thus, he writes:

"А вот здесь уже есть предмет для обсуждения: были ли или не были нарушены подписанные условия ввода и условия пребывания войск на военных базах. Если окажется, что были, то тогда можно говорить об агрессии, но никак не об оккупации. Латвию, Литву и Эстонию в 1940 году не оккупировали, а силой при активном содействии местных компартий и поддержке части населения присоединили к Советскому Союзу. Формально даже не по инициативе Кремля, а по просьбе парламентов этих стран."

In other words, according to him we can speak not about occupation, but about "forceful incorporation" (although formally voluntary).

Again, I cannot say I fully agree with him. My point is different. You cannot claim that the source that formally meets RS criteria in unreliable just based on your own analysis of the source's content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, again, this is not "my" analysis. Simonyan makes statements at odds with reputable non-partisan scholarship, at odds with the records of even Soviet archives, but in support of political Russian administration pronouncements. That makes him a WP:FRINGE viewpoint with regard to the topic of Soviet actions in the Baltic. I'm not making any statement as to whether or not he is reliable elsewhere. That is immaterial to the discussion here. There is no reputable scholarship that calls it "voluntary" occupation either, being it was coerced. Again, I expect better. I'm not the one making personal contentions ignoring reputable scholarship.

My apologies for being blunt, but I don't care how much you agree or not with Simonyan, neither your opinion nor my opinion matter. The question is, does what he states line up with reputable scholarship? (Or even reflect reality?) And the answer is NO. In the case of Soviet actions in the Baltic states, it does not.

Finally, and yet again, I have no issue with presenting opinions that the Baltics joined legally and voluntarily, were not occupied, were not forcibly annexed, etc. etc. But that can all be presented as opinion only, being unsupported in reputable non-partisan scholarship. Such opinions may in no way be represented as reputable mainstream scholarship. That is how encyclopedias are written regardless of the subject matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I do not share the idea that the Baltic parliaments were elected legally. However, you cannot make a decision about reliability or non-reliability of this source. We can speak about minority or even fringe views here, however, your statement about "blatantly and incontrovertibly false" Simonyan's statements is just your assertion.

In addition, other Simonyan's points seem reasonable, namely his mention of the role of local Communists and of part of local population, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You are (just now) making personal contentions as to suitability whereas I am making contentions as to suitability based on no reputable non-partisan source supporting his statement that the Baltic parliaments were legal representatives. I completely fail to see how your contentions constitute scholarship while my contentions constitute my own personal judgement clouded by my alleged Baltic POV. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all very well, but we need more than just one scholar to demonstrate that this is an view worth treating with significant weight in the article. Near as I can tell, Simonyan's views are in the minority camp of global scholarly opinion, perhaps even pushing the fringe. We don't give Viktor Suvorov and his supporters' views equal weight to mainstream views in the Operation Barbarossa article (and that rightfully so). Hell, even the article dealing with his views is labelled Soviet offensive plans controversy, not Planned Soviet invasion of Nazi Germany. What indication is there that Simonyan's views here are accepted enough to be the basis for renaming this article? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Simonyan's views don't seem to be accepted by mainstream Russian academia, when considering that you have academic heavy weights like Professor, Dean of the School of International Relations and vice Rector of St. Petersburg (Leningrad) State University, Konstantin K. Khudoley calling the events in the Baltics as an occupation and stating:

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

Note that the "Journal of International Affairs" was founded in 1954 by the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which claimed up until 1989 that the Secret Protocols of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact never existed), and that this journal continues to be affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs[14]. --Martin (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that confirms it as a mouthpiece of the Russian authorities, case closed. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I expected this argument to be put forward. Since Russia is not the USSR (i.e. not a totalitarian state), I don't think there is any formal difference between Russia and other Eastern European countries. Therefore, if we do not reject the sources having close connection with authorities of other countries, why should we do that in this case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, I would hope to not lose my respect for your command of applicable sources. The official Russian position regarding legal joining et al. is no different from the version of history promulgated by the Soviet Union. That Russia is not ruled by Stalin is immaterial. That the NKVD no longer exists is immaterial. I am not rejecting a source because it is associated with Russian authorities, I am rejecting a source because it substitutes fiction for fact in a manner wholly consistent with official pronouncements of the Russian Federation which identically substitute fiction for fact according to all reputable scholarship and indisputable facts. Nothing to do with my opinion, everything to do with Simonyan's "opinion" in the support of the official Russian "position."

I have to ask, has there been something that has happened somewhere on some article or in the real world that has radicalized you? I would not have expected this sort of defense of demonstrably fact-free propaganda a year ago. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you decided something had radicalised me? As I already noted (several times), I myself do not think this Simonyan's statement to be valid. It is either minority or fringe views, and should be treated as such. However your claim that this article is not a reliable source is hardly reliable either: if some views are fringe, that does not automatically mean the source is not reliable. Similarly, the brilliant Martin's observation that "Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'" was a former Soviet journal, and that now it is affiliated with Russian ministry of foreign affairs makes it not less neutral than, e.g. Hoover institution (of course, I discuss only formal aspects). Again, the idea that some sources can be considered as unreliable because they contradict to what other sources say (many reliable sources contradict to each other), because they reproduce Soviet times' concepts (sometimes, not frequently, even Soviet sources were correct), or because they are have a connection to some state authorities (what about Free Europe Radio?) is hardly acceptable.

Once again, we disagree not about the validity of this concrete Simonyan's statement: that statement is not shared by contemporary Russian or Western scholars, and it can be rejected as fringe views. What I disagree with is the attempts to draw a conclusion about reliability of the source (or even the author, or a journal as whole) based on your analysis of this statement, or based on the fact that the journal where this article was published has a connection with Russian ministry of foreign affairs. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving back to the actual discussion now: "It is either minority or fringe views". Okay, excellent. So why then should we give undue weight to this position by including it in the title? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, we shouldn't. However, this conclusion has a relation to this Simonyan's statement only (about legal joining). Since we never planned to add naything of that kind to the title, I don't see a connection between this statement and the discussion about the title.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To Igny:

1. What I'm saying is that one thing is to agree about a legal term is applicable per se and another one to agree that it should be part of the title.

2. You cannot legitimise a drop of something from a title that has never even been part of it.

3. What could be more important here than the legal definition of these events?

4. I just say that the continuous occupation of the Baltic States is and should remain a core topic of this article.

5. Yes, for a week now I have been urging us to use only neutral peer-reviewed sources.

6. Got a source to back up that opinion?

8. Got a source to back up that claim? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough has been said above already

Other than listening to an endless rehash of everything that has been said before, there's little purpose in continuing the discussion regarding "annexation" in the title further (or its absence being grounds for a POV tag):

• the absence of "annexation" does not make the title less POV; in fact, the addition of "annexation" effectively supports the POV that annexation ended occupation, effected the end of Baltic sovereignty making the current Baltic states "new" as opposed to a "continuation" of their former selves, etc. also implying the legality of actions is separate from their effect or not on continuity of sovereignty
• the inclusion of "annexation" only applies only to the actions of the Soviet Union and therefore is inappropriate to a title referring to a continuous subjugation of Baltic territory under two invading powers across three invasions:
• it is historically significant that the Baltic states were continuously occupied by the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and then the Soviet Union again and so it is also inappropriate to lobby for a split of the article on the basis that the USSR annexed while Germany administered.

@Igny, I'm sorry, but there is no scholarly (as opposed to personal contentions which we can all debate until the proverbial cows come home) basis for your objection and contention of POV here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, I have learned to let go of some long-held beliefs upon researching topics for WP—when something I've believed in the past doesn't stand up to the cold hard facts of reputable scholarship, it's time to move on. You might consider the same with regard to some of your concerns regarding the scholarly portrayal of certain aspects of the Soviet legacy. My perception, of course—you likely feel differently and are certainly entitled to do so. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Side discussion

@Paul: We do appear to be uncharacteristically not connecting—as opposed to connecting but disagreeing. WP:FRINGE is being overly kind with respect to Simonyan, usually even fringe opinions are based on some sort of kernel of fact. The "legal joining" theorem (along with the "not occupied" and related "troops invited in" theorems) has been more than totally debunked by scholars far more qualified than myself—nor is that debunking a function of Baltic scholarship. What I am perplexed by is your seeming insistence that I am opining from my pedestal as opposed to representing reputable scholarship. You might consider with greater care what sources and authors you choose to defend. While your defense of Simonyan is (commendably) less than enthusiastic, the issue is that his views don't merit any inclusion whatsoever insofar as trustworthy reputable sources are concerned. If an author is shown to perpetrate complete misrepresentation of undeniable facts as verified by reputable scholarship (not Vecrumba), who are we to then decide where the lies and misrepresentations end (per your "other Simonyan's points seem reasonable")? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You still are missing the point. Consider a following situation.

1. A scholar A made a statement X the mainstream sources B, C, D and F disagree with.
2. A Wikipedian B cites these sources and based on that declares the statement X is fringe;
3. A Wikipedian C cites these sources B - F and based on that declares that the scholar A is a fringe theorist.

Obviously, whereas 2 is correct, 3 is not necessarily true. That was the only idea I tried to convey. I myself faced similar situations before, and I fully understand that to claim the the scholar X, whose claim Y contradict to what reliable sources say, is not a reliable source would be WP:OR. If you want to dismiss this concrete Simonyan's statement, I'll fully agree with that. However, if you want to dismiss Simonyan as whole, you must either provide reliable sources that debunk him explicitly, or to demonstrate his low notability (using, e.g., google scholar). That will be an evidence I would fully accept, and, frankly speaking, I suspect you will be able to do that. However, the arguments used by your are not satisfactory. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is helpful, as your notion of appropriate examples does not match mine, so that should give us something more concrete to discuss.

Consider the (alternate) following situation.

1. A scholar A made a statement X the mainstream sources B, C, D and F indisputably show to be false. Scholar A is closely associated (affiliations, activism, head of institute) with the topic area to which statement X pertains. [Simonyan is head of the Russian-Baltic Center at the Sociology Institute.]
2. A Wikipedian B cites these sources B - F and based on them declares the statement X is false regarding the topic area statement X pertains to;
3. A Wikipedian C cites these sources B - F and based on that declares that the scholar A is unreliable regarding the topic area statement X pertains to, regardless of their relevant professional associations.

The issue is that Simonyan's purported area of expertise is the Baltic states, Baltic-Russia relations, etc. That he is incontrovertibly shown to make false statements regarding the Baltics calls his entire scholarship into question. You state my contention that he has shown himself to be unreliable is WP:OR and is not satisfactory (that is, insufficient to make the leap from "statement X is incorrect" to calling his overall reliability into question).

As demonstrated gross misrepresentation of historical fact is insufficient, then, really, any reputable sources calling Simonyan's scholarship into question can be disputed as simply being alternate opinions, and we wind up back where we started, dooming us to an endless looping litany of contention and counter-contention. (On a separate but related note, your Google search notability test is flawed as anything out of the mainstream does not generate sufficient hits across a statistically significant range of sites to be meaningful.)

Were I to attempt to sum up the difference between your example and my response, I might pose it as a question: does a false contention qualify as a "fringe viewpoint" or is it simply false? Is it WP:FRINGE to contend the earth is flat, or is it simply false? I'm extremely busy the next few days, please feel free to take your time to formulate a response for us to discuss further. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In humanities things don't tend to be objectively clear even when we think they could be. So in this case the neutral scholarship deals with the Russian government POV as a significant minority view. The article should deal with that in that manner while the title should reflect only the NPOV. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fringe" or "false", this doesn't matter. I personally do not think the statement that the Baltic states were annexed following the request of legally elected governments should be in the article: even if it is not false, it is too fringe to be included. However, your 3 is not right because you cannot expand the conclusion about one statement on the whole topic. Secondly, the very idea that something can be rejected, because it is "a mouthpiece of (some) authorities", is also incorrect, otherwise many sources should be excluded. These are my two objections.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

While I have a personal love for metaphors and similes, they are not the best manner in which to argue encyclopedic content as any metaphor or simile already has as its basis a systemic bias. With that caveat, on #3, this case would be like:

1. an astronomer, head of a moon institute, states the moon is made of cheese (i.e, unequivocally false)
2. the astronomer's pronouncements are a verbatim copy of the pronouncements of the "Moon Cheddar Society"
3. the astronomer states something else about the moon or planets

Do we conclude the astronomer is:

1. a reliable source regarding the moon, head of the moon institute after all, he's just off on the cheese part
2. potentially a reliable source on astronomy, but not reliable on the topic of the moon in general (cheese et al.) as he espouses a position supporting that of the "Moon Cheddar Society" and which is unequivocally false, his being head of a moon institute notwithstanding
3. not a very good astronomer in the first place, we can't consider any statement reliable

Simonyan objectively fits conclusion #2. It is only conclusion #3 which oversteps the bounds of consideration. Your contention that there are many people who echo official positions, by my logic all such statements would need to be excluded, misses the mark. It is the echoing of (official or not does not matter in this context) positions which are unequivocally false that is at issue; and it is the advocating for an unequivocally false position as factual which qualifies an individual as being a "mouthpiece" for organizations—official of otherwise—which advocate that position. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally, the issue of the journal being affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs presents a serious question mark about the degree to which ministry officials exert editorial influence either through selection of authors invited to contribute or directly upon the subject matter discussed, let alone the effectiveness of its peer review processes. Astonishingly we see published as recently as 2010 in the journal fringe views by those who apparently continue to deny Soviet involvement at Katyn and deny the existence of the secret protocols of the Soviet-German pact: "The “evidence” of the existence of the so-called secret protocols to the 1939 Soviet-German Pact was the Nuremberg Trial's other major contribution to the cause of historical revisionism. Immediately upon the proclamation of the Cold War, Western judges floated the theme by allowing it to surface at the Nuremberg Trial" with a footnote referencing a fringe paper by A. Kungurov: "The Secret Protocols or Who Forged the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Moscow, Eksmo-Algoritm Publishers, 2009". The journal has a disclaimer at the bottom of the article "The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of editorial", but why publish these fringe views in the first place? And why hasn't academic heavyweights like Konstantin K. Khudoley (who is Dean of the School of International Relations so the topic of "International Affairs" would be right up his alley) been invited to write on the topic of the Baltic states for this journal? --Martin (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Сыр луны! Published since 1954 with no change in its editorial stance, apparently, even as a totalitarian state where "history serves politics" (not my words) crashed down around it. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)