| Revision as of 11:57, 22 October 2021 editSeryo93 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,837 edits →Occupation and annexation← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:45, 22 October 2021 edit undoPaul Siebert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,740 edits →Occupation and annexation: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| Why the name of this article starts with "Occupation of ..." but for Crimea the name of the article is "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"? In both cases there were occupation and annexation and in both cases it is internationally not recognized. In both cases many countries condemned the occupation and the annexation and consider them to be a violation of international law. We should develop single approach either "Annexation of ..." either "Occupation of ..." and then rename one of this articles. I open the same discussion on another talk page too: ]. --] (]) 11:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | Why the name of this article starts with "Occupation of ..." but for Crimea the name of the article is "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"? In both cases there were occupation and annexation and in both cases it is internationally not recognized. In both cases many countries condemned the occupation and the annexation and consider them to be a violation of international law. We should develop single approach either "Annexation of ..." either "Occupation of ..." and then rename one of this articles. I open the same discussion on another talk page too: ]. --] (]) 11:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :] won't work, and the naming is dependent upon a) article topic and b) ]. The annexation of Crimea article is, foremost, about 2014 takeover, which was and is commonly known in English as annexation of Crimea. This article (]), on the other hand, is intended to encompass entire 1940-1991 period (and well, Russian interwiki for that article wasn't correct either, ]'s topic is limited to 1940, hence it is more workable with ]; that particular article's renaming to annexation could be discussed, but only with strong evidence that "Soviet annexation of the Baltic states" is commonname for the 1940 events, otherwise the page title will stay), and that period's commonname is, apparently, "Occupation of the Baltic states". Hence, again, move won't be forthcoming. Bests, --] (]) 11:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | :] won't work, and the naming is dependent upon a) article topic and b) ]. The annexation of Crimea article is, foremost, about 2014 takeover, which was and is commonly known in English as annexation of Crimea. This article (]), on the other hand, is intended to encompass entire 1940-1991 period (and well, Russian interwiki for that article wasn't correct either, ]'s topic is limited to 1940, hence it is more workable with ]; that particular article's renaming to annexation could be discussed, but only with strong evidence that "Soviet annexation of the Baltic states" is commonname for the 1940 events, otherwise the page title will stay), and that period's commonname is, apparently, "Occupation of the Baltic states". Hence, again, move won't be forthcoming. Bests, --] (]) 11:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :As I already explained several years ago, the problem that most people believe that "occupation" is something obviously bad and illegal, whereas "annexation" is something more neutral and legal. That is not true. "Occupation" is an intrinsically temporary phenomenon, and occupied territories have a different legal ''according to domestic laws of the occupying state''. Thus, an occupied territory always has a different legal status, and the population of the occupied territory do not fall completely under the occupying state's jurisdiction (some special IDs are usually issued to them). These as well as many other aspects are stipulated by Geneva conventions. Thus, after the fall of the Third Reich, the Allies had to invent the ''occupatio sui generis'' and ''debellatio'' concepts to make Nuremberg Trials possible, because, according to Geneva conventions, the occupying states have no right to do so. | |||
| :In contrast, "annexation" is a complete and permanent incorporation of some territory into another state. What happened in Baltic states (and Crimea) falls under the definition of "annexation", and should be described as such. | |||
| :However, there is one big problem here. According to Geneva conventions, {{tq|occupied territories cannot be annexed}}. Therefore, both Crimean and Baltic cases should be described as "illegal annexation as a result of military occupation". The problem is that most writers do not understand those nuances, and apply the term "occupation" to the Baltic case (as if some military administration existed in the Baltic states during the whole period of 1940-91, and the Baltic citizens has some specific IDs, different from Soviet passports, and they had different political and civil rights etc). However, if that is the case, that automatically means that, e.g. Vilnius must be returned to Poland (for obvious reasons), and so on. To avoid that problem, an Estonian scholar Malksoo applied the term ''occupatio sui generis'' to the Baltic states, but as he concluded, only 1940 naval blockade was the reason to conclude so. ] (]) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:45, 22 October 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupation of the Baltic states article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
,_Emblem_of_Russia_(1991%E2%80%931992).svg)
Referencing and citation: criterion met
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Occupation and annexation
Why the name of this article starts with "Occupation of ..." but for Crimea the name of the article is "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"? In both cases there were occupation and annexation and in both cases it is internationally not recognized. In both cases many countries condemned the occupation and the annexation and consider them to be a violation of international law. We should develop single approach either "Annexation of ..." either "Occupation of ..." and then rename one of this articles. I open the same discussion on another talk page too: Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation#Occupation and annexation. --Somerby (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFF won't work, and the naming is dependent upon a) article topic and b) WP:COMMONNAME. The annexation of Crimea article is, foremost, about 2014 takeover, which was and is commonly known in English as annexation of Crimea. This article (Occupation of the Baltic states), on the other hand, is intended to encompass entire 1940-1991 period (and well, Russian interwiki for that article wasn't correct either, ru:присоединение Прибалтики к СССР's topic is limited to 1940, hence it is more workable with Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940); that particular article's renaming to annexation could be discussed, but only with strong evidence that "Soviet annexation of the Baltic states" is commonname for the 1940 events, otherwise the page title will stay), and that period's commonname is, apparently, "Occupation of the Baltic states". Hence, again, move won't be forthcoming. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I already explained several years ago, the problem that most people believe that "occupation" is something obviously bad and illegal, whereas "annexation" is something more neutral and legal. That is not true. "Occupation" is an intrinsically temporary phenomenon, and occupied territories have a different legal according to domestic laws of the occupying state. Thus, an occupied territory always has a different legal status, and the population of the occupied territory do not fall completely under the occupying state's jurisdiction (some special IDs are usually issued to them). These as well as many other aspects are stipulated by Geneva conventions. Thus, after the fall of the Third Reich, the Allies had to invent the occupatio sui generis and debellatio concepts to make Nuremberg Trials possible, because, according to Geneva conventions, the occupying states have no right to do so.
- In contrast, "annexation" is a complete and permanent incorporation of some territory into another state. What happened in Baltic states (and Crimea) falls under the definition of "annexation", and should be described as such.
- However, there is one big problem here. According to Geneva conventions,
occupied territories cannot be annexed
. Therefore, both Crimean and Baltic cases should be described as "illegal annexation as a result of military occupation". The problem is that most writers do not understand those nuances, and apply the term "occupation" to the Baltic case (as if some military administration existed in the Baltic states during the whole period of 1940-91, and the Baltic citizens has some specific IDs, different from Soviet passports, and they had different political and civil rights etc). However, if that is the case, that automatically means that, e.g. Vilnius must be returned to Poland (for obvious reasons), and so on. To avoid that problem, an Estonian scholar Malksoo applied the term occupatio sui generis to the Baltic states, but as he concluded, only 1940 naval blockade was the reason to conclude so. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Estonia articles
- Top-importance Estonia articles
- WikiProject Estonia articles
- B-Class Latvia articles
- High-importance Latvia articles
- WikiProject Latvia articles
- B-Class Lithuania articles
- Top-importance Lithuania articles
- B-Class Germany articles
- Mid-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- B-Class Soviet Union articles
- High-importance Soviet Union articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Baltic states military history articles
- Baltic states military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles