Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:24, 14 June 2012 editPaul Siebert (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,740 edits →Dishonest?!← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:23, 14 June 2012 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk \| contribs)234,552 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 20d) to Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 15.Next edit →
Line 38:		Line 38:
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes		\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}		}}

	== Pauls Seibert's edits ==

	Paul Seibert appears to be edit warring over the article tag,, yet he seems unable to continue the discussion on talk above. It is unacceptable that he should avoid this article while maintaining the tag, stating that he is busy with something else: "I think we probably should finish with Holodomor first. And, for a while, all tags should stay." Either he continues here or that tag should go if he can't proceed. --] (]) 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
	:I would say, removal of the POV tag (in a tag team fashion) without obtaining consensus has more traits of an edit war. The state continuity issue is not the only issue we disagree about. You preferred simply to ignore some of my concerns, for instance, the post I made on 04:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC). The dispute over the last lede paragraph is one of several issues we need to resolve before the POV tag cam be removed, and I see no progress so far. Therefore, I respectfully request you to immediately restore the tag.--] (]) 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
	:Although I have not actively participated in the discussion here due to the RL reasons, I have followed it closely, and I fail to see any consensus to drop the tags. (] (]) 01:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

	== Pribaltika nationalities among the Soviet forces ==

	The people of the relevant countries were not unanimously opposed to the Soviet system and did not overwhelmingly welcome the invading Germans. Data suggests that those fighting against the Soviet system were in fact outnumbered by those that fought on its behalf.

	Large numbers of people belonging to Baltic nationalities served in the Soviet Army:



	Prominence is attached to the eviction of some numbers of people in the countries, but nothing is mentioned about the reported atrocities committed by the anti-Soviet forces in the immediate post-war years, which influenced Soviet policies on coercion and security.



	This article and the one linked to it reduce the entire 50+ year existence of the Pribaltika SSRs to paranoid claims about Russification and immigration seeking to inflict harm on the local population. But this is highly disputed, as historians Soviet policies promoted the culture and languages of nationalities rather than trying to suppress them. Historians argue that the large, compact communities of nationalities in the USSR faced little chance of assimilating into Russian culture, while those living away from such communities often did assimilate or get into mixed marriages.

	In the Pribaltika, there was concrete socioeconomic and political progress in all areas of life, as the abundance of historical literature and works of journalism argue. This needs to be elaborated on. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::Surely, as the Soviets were the first occupation regime to conduct a general mobilisation. --] (]) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


	::This is correct, the Forest brothers fought for the independence of the Baltic states (this is the name in English, as opposed to Pribaltika) and against the occupation regime. You are welcome to add the numbers to the articel. However, normally we don't treat ] or ] as terrorists. --] (]) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

	This article aims to represent the mainstream scholarly view, as opposed to the Soviet and Russian official point of view. If you have sources we are missing, you are welcome to bring them forward. The prosperity of cultures and nationalities sounds like an excerpt from a Soviet textbook. Considering the social and economic progress in the Baltic states, the population grew only due to immigration, while the indigenous population remained the same. The development of industry is generally regarded as colonial, mainly subcontracting for the Soviet military industry while the local supply of civilian goods was insufficient. The agriculture was developed in a similar way, aimed at the Soviet market while the local food supply was scarce. And I am talking about the 1970s and 1980s as well, when a lack of food is hardly a sign of 'socioeconomic and political progress'. --] (]) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

	::Please do not turn the Talk Page into a battleground. Here you are making controversial, politically-motivated claims about how "Forest Brothers" fought for "independence" when in fact others argue the opposite and refer to the reported war crimes committed by them, as shown in the cited works above. You belittle opposing opinions merely as "Russian official point of view". But who else is going to have a point of view on the subject? Almost all information about the region comes from primary and secondary sources published in Russia or the Pribaltika states. Yet, you single out the Russians for not being credible.

	::You make a brief statement about the war period, but you apparently have not researched the issue because large numbers of Pribaltika nationalities actually volunteered to serve in the Army and partisan forces. So why comment on the issue if you have not researched it?

	::Your denial of the fact of concrete progress in the economic and social spheres would have to be described as fringe, as it totally conflicts mainstream literature on the issue.

	::Your claim about colonialism is inaccurate according to specialists, as Fomenko argues in the ''International Affairs'' journal:

	''The Baltic infrastructure was developing at a fast pace on the federal budget money, that is, at the expense of the Russian territories. Till the very end of the Soviet Union, on the eve of its "second independence," the Baltic republics were still getting money from the Center. Under the 1986 and 1987 budget laws of the U.S.S.R., Lithuania received money from the federal budget: 48,052 thousand rubles in 1986, and 230,225 thousand rubles in 1987. 24 In 1988, the republic got no money yet the republican budget retained 98.2 percent of sales tax (the main tax proceeds) and 100 percent of income tax. The R.S.F.S.R. could count only on 50 percent.]''

	::You mention immigration and population growth. But observers point out that immigration was a response to the low population growth in Estonia and Latvia, whose economies could not cope with a labor shortage. Lithuania, by contrast, had healthy birth rates and therefore did not receive immigration. Likewise, you ignore the fact that large numbers of Pribaltika nationalities migrated to Russia in the last 100 years: 1926 Soviet census shows over 295k Estonians and Latvians living in Russia and its neighboring republics, who by the xenophobic logic of certain nationalist activists would be classified as "occupiers" undeserving of the rights coming with citizenship. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::If you take a closer look, this article looks only at the political context of the occupation, not social, economic, or cultural. If you are that eager to get your material published in the Misplaced Pages, bring it to the ] and equip it with something more solid than Russian news reports. --] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::Considering the Baltic volunteers among the Red Army, I would be happy to see the figures. Although how can these be great under a general mobilisation, when every fit man is compulsed to join the army anyway...?
	:::Regarding Forest Brothers war crimes and terrorism then killing one's enemy in a war is not a war crime. The Forest Brothers were Baltic citizens who fought against the Communist regime, so active Communists were their enemies. Soviet partisans made subversive attacks againsst Nazis and killed them, I couldn't believe it if you called that a war crime or terrorism. --] (]) 02:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

	:::: Soviets illegaly conscripted the peoples of the Baltics just as the Nazis illegally conscripted them. Individuals wound up fighting against brothers, or for both sides in succession. Baltic Soviet units were so unreliable (they would not kill their own) that they had to be deployed elsewhere along the Eastern Front. As for population growth, mass deportations would have an effect, no? Let's not pretend that the mass influx of resettled immigrants during post war occupation was anything except the stamping out of nationalism. And let's not forget the purges of Baltic communist nationalists. @75.51.170.140, that you cannot even call the Baltics by their proper name, preferring the transliterated Russian, rather betrays your POV here. ]<small> ►]</small> 04:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::::The claim about the Soviet side "illegally" conscripting Pribaltika peoples is obviously controversial. And did you read anything stated above? Because your claim about the Pribaltika peoples being "unreliable" in the Soviet forces is at odds with the research on this subject. Statiev cites convincing data to prove that the Pribaltika peoples made impressive contributions to the Soviet war effort. Anyway, my point is that this information needs to be included in the article because the current version gives the impression that these people were unanimously anti-Soviet when in fact the vast majority were even either pro-Soviet or politically passive. Regarding immigration, there is plenty of literature that challenges the nationalist paranoia about "colonization".
	::::::You are misreading the Alexander Statiev source. He states that there were three types of people who joined for the Red Army: (1) loyalist Balts who had evacuated with the Red Army, (2) Balts who permanently resided in the Soviet Union (presumably those Balts who had emigrated into other parts of the Russian empire/Soviet Russia before 1920), and (3) conscripted labour battalions formed during the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. --] (]) 11:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::You are wrong about Baltic nationalities living in Russia forming the bulk of participants in the Soviet war effort. Statiev states that ca. 100,000 Lithuanians were in the Red Army. The 1939 census only shows that 32,624 Lithuanians lived in the USSR, meaning that the vast majority of Lithuanians on the Soviet side came from Lithuanian territory. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::::::Yes, the majority of Lithuanians were conscripted into the Red Army, Statiev states: ''"By March 1945, 99,974 Lithuanians were drafted into the Red Army"''. Since Soviet sovereignty wasn't recognised over the Baltic states back in 1945 (some argue the 1975 Helsinki Accords afforded recognition, but even if we accept that for argument's sake, such recognition isn't retrospective under international law), conscription was illegal. --] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::That's original research on your part. Other legal analysts and scholars affirm the legality of the joining to the Soviet Union. Since this conflict exists, the drivel of the White Book cannot be cited without clear attribution and the consideration of alternative arguments <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	The 75.51.170.140 editor, as well as this guy (who are obviously the same person) both appear to be socks of indefinetly banned user . The edits made by these socks should be reverted.] (]) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

	== Title Bias ==		== Title Bias ==

Revision as of 06:23, 14 June 2012

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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: 20 days

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.

Estonia Top‑importance

Occupation of the Baltic states is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles
Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles)
Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it
Maintain : Portal:Estonia
Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Estonia)
Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Latvia High‑importance

	Latvia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Lithuania Top‑importance

	Lithuania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Soviet Union: Russia / History High‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Russia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

Military history: Baltic states / European / German / Russian & Soviet / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Baltic states military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War II task force

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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: 20 days

Title Bias

The Russian Wiki's version of this article has a name that translates to "Accession of the Pribaltika to the USSR" , which is a fair and NPOV of approaching the issue. Similar changes for this article should be considered.

This event is not known under such name in English literature. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest additions

This addition is controversial.

Use of the term "Baltic nationals" is also controversial, implying that they were not Soviet citizens when in actuality they were.

And whether it qualifies as a reliable source is dubious. Without extensive attribution, this source cannot be cited.

This work has been completed as a result of the work of the Estonian State Commission on Examination of the Policies of Repression and with the supportof the Riigikogu, the Government of the Republic of Estonia and Ministry of Justice. -- this sounds propagadistic. The purpose of this is not academic research, but is the consequence of the agenda of a government and its ministries. And it amounts to original research to try and connect "forced mobilisation" with service in the Red Army, as large numbers of people volunteered.

Regarding the citizenship of the Baltic nationals, read State continuity of the Baltic states.

The agenda of the commission was "to publish a scientiﬁc investigation into all the losses and damages suffered by the Estonian nation during the occupation regimes”.

There is no such thing as volunteering under a general mobilisation.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, and certainly cannot be cited without attribution. The pamphleteers talking about "scientific investigation" is not very interesting. Оther sources describe it as propaganda with inaccurate and misleading information. See for example:

:::"... From M. Laar to the official "White Paper" - they nothing to do with scientific research....These data in these papers about the "Soviet occupation terror" from a historical point view are totally unfounded, self-contradictory, are not supported by archival documents and, as a rule, go back to concoctions propagandists of Nazi Germany."

Passing off the claims made in the "White Book" as something representing the consensus is very dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity which are universally recognized as the foremost source about the topic, are worthless. We should instead use a source that identifies itself with a Russian unit known for killing civilians and having close ties to an organized crime. Yay! --Sander Säde 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The source cited above indicates that the White Book is not reliable, meaning that your suggestion about the White Book being the "universially recognized as the foremost source on the topic" is questionable. You dismiss the Спецназ России journal, but you produce nothing about it being unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The blog site liewar.ru is hardly a reliable source. --Nug (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Historian A. Dyukov, who is the author of the transcribed text, is considered a reliable source, and he says that the White Paper is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll feed the troll by ROTFL. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edit

I construe this edit as disruptive because hasty conclusions about the source's reliability are reached without sufficient knowledge about the source. Specnaz Rossii has been cited in scholarly studies, such as "The Nature of Anti-Soviet Armed Resistance, 1942-44: The North Caucasus, the Kalmyk Autonomous Republic, and Crimea" in the Kritika journal by Professor Statiev, where in endnote #50 on p.301 he specifically cites this source for his data. Since we don't have sources of comparable quality of this topic in English, the Spetsnaz Rossii article will stay.

50...Igor Pykhalov, “ ‘Kavkazskie orly’ Tret´ego Reikha,” Spetsnaz Rossii, 61, 10 (2001)

This book also cites the same article in its endnotes. See p.172

"...In 1941-44, Soviet law enforcement agencies destroyed 197 gangs in the CIASSR; 657 of their numbers were killed, 2762 taken prisoner, and 1113 surrendered, this making 4532 a total number of defeated gangsters. (see e.g. Igor Pykhalov, "Kavkazie orly' tretiego reikha', Spetznaz Rossii, No. 10, October 2001. p. 172

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Spetsnaz Rossii is a reliable source for the viewpoint of Spetsnaz#Alpha_Group veterans, nothing more. --Nug (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above sources corroborate it's reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

However Misplaced Pages policy dictates that such websites are only really reliable for their own viewpoints. --Nug (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above IP is a sock of indef banned user Jacob Peters. Just revert on sight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In 20 days his flotsam will be autoarchived. I have no objection, however, to simply deleting all the threads he started here. Any modicum of constructive conversation that resulted which would genuinely apply to improving the article can be repeated in a more collegial atmosphere. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Marek that this IP is a sock puppet. He has made similar tendentious edits to the articles August Uprising, Rape during the occupation of Germany as 76.191.230.178, who is a confirmed sock puppet of User:Orijentolog . --Nug (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. What should be the consequences with the article, should we revert to the stable version prior to his involvement? I am talking about the section 'Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces', which is now adequate but the sock started it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it is a bit off-topic to have a sub-section "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" in the section "German occupation 1941–1944". Estonian nationals in Soviet forces is already mentioned in Estonia in World War II, while Military history of Latvia during World War II seems under-developed and there doesn't appear to be a corresponding article for Lithuania in WW2. Perhaps a sentence about Soviet conscription added to the section "Soviet occupation and annexation 1940–1941" because they were already conscripting labour battalions as a form of repression, and move "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" to the relevant articles (may have to create Lithuania in World War II). --Nug (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

POV title tag

Considering that the article covers occupation of the Baltic states by USSR and Germany as well as the annexation of the Baltic states by USSR as per multiple sources cited in the article as well as discussed in the talk page here, I am going to restart the discussion on why the annexation and occupation (clearly two diffferent phenomena) are mixed under this title. (Igny (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

Seems that your multiple discussions in the past have not gained WP:CONSENSUS - from 2009 on, and consistently failed to cause any change in the title. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What new arguments can you bring to the discussion, Igny? I seem to remember that the reason for the failure of previous discussions has largely been that Igny et al have not been able to back up their claims with sources. Otherwise, I don't see a reason to beat that particular dead horse again. --Sander Säde 06:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The argument is, in my opinion, that no old issues have been resolved, and no consensus have been achieved. With regards\ to the lack of sources, that is simple a lie.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, there was no consensus to move the title and thus it remains as it is. Placing a POV tag because of an unsuccessful move attempt shows an inability to accept the community's view that a move is unnecessary. That the first thing Igny does after coming off a six month topic ban is to place such a tag exemplifies a level of disruptiveness which you seem to support. --Nug (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I suggest you stop such personal attacks. We've gone over this numerous times and the issue has always been that Igny and you fail to bring solid, reliable mainstream sources that actively support your claims - at best there have been "but this author does not mention" type of sources - otherwise we would have been done with this issue years ago. You know this as well as I do.

I'd say say we've discussed this issue over and over and over - and unless there is even a single new idea, a new source, a new insight from protesters - I see no need whatsoever go over same arguments and sources once again.

--Sander Säde 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, which claim I was unable to support? That many reliable and mainstream sources speak about "annexation", and that we cannot use the sole word "Occupation" in the title and in the article? If that is the claim I failed to support, in your opinion, your statement is a lie. However, if you meant something else, please, let me know, and I'll gladly apologise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, stop being a WP:DICK and just apologise. Maligning the other party as being liars is immature and uncollegial. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Re stop being a WP:DICK. Now, that is an insult. I see how usage of the term "personal attack" has evolved here. Apparently nowadays using the dick word in political debates is quite kosher. I also see that very little has changed in last months on WP. Same group of people is pushing their own agenda at all costs. (Igny (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

We have not only a WP:DICK, but WP:DUCK also. If it looks like a lie then it probably is a lie. However, you probably noticed I didn't call anyone a liar. I just wrote that if some user made a statement X, then the statement X is a lie. I admit that it might be a mistake, and, if that is a case, I am ready to apologize. The only thing I need for that is a proof that I failed to support my above statement ("many reliable and mainstream sources speak about "annexation", and that we cannot use the sole word "Occupation" in the title and in the article ") with mainstream reliable sources. The problem is, however, that I don't remember my arguments had been refuted so far, and, frankly speaking, I don't believe it is possible to refute them, because I do not propose to remove some word and replace it with another one; in contrast, I propose just to supplement one word with another, and such authors as Lauri Malksoo (an author of the book that is considered as a reliable source by all parties of this dispute) explained us that that would be more correct. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, the statement that I failed to support my claim with reliable sources is a blatant lie, and I, per WP:DUCK call it accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, we have discussed this many times before, look in the archive. You are not bringing any new arguments, just exhibiting an apparent propensity to flog a well and truly dead horse. --Nug (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To unilaterally decide that the horse is dead is not a solution. I do not need to bring new arguments when the old ones are being ignored. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments have been thoroughly refuted. As I observed in a previous thread, you seem to have a tendency to abandon a thread when your argument fails and return some months later to repeat it all over again. You claim you have provided reliable sources to support your arguments, in the last instance it was van Elsuwege, when I pointed out that he also agreed that the Baltic states were occupied for fifty years you disappeared from that discussion!! And here you are, claiming "I don't remember my arguments had been refuted so far", well no wonder, you keep running away when ever some inconsistency in your argument is highlighted. What a joke. --Nug (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what dead horse are you talking about. It seems to be an unresolved editorial dispute. To claim that "no consensus" on the previous move discussions somehow resolved the dispute is not true, no consensus =/= keep. There have been many strong arguments for moving the article which have been largely ignored. Most of your counter-arguments have been addressed and dismissed as irrelevant. My main argument remains as strong as ever. The article in current form is titled with a strong bias to the Baltic nationalistic POV. Scores of arguments based on netrual and widely accepted sources used in support of "annexation" in the title have been ignored. (Igny (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC))

If you believe it is not a "dead horse" then present new and cogent arguments on the topic. Your prior arguments have not remotely gotten consensus, and at some point it is likely you should simply accept that not all decisions will conform with what you WP:KNOW to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember my old arguments had been refuted. What about the Malksoo's e-mail? I remember no logically correct refutation.

The same is true for my gscholar results. If many sources speak about "annexation", we cannot use a single term.

Position of all of you may be summarised as follows: "We do not like the word "annexation", and, based on that, reject your arguments. Please, provide new arguments". However, I see no reason to provide fresh arguments in a situation when old ones are being ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be dishonest Paul, we have listened to you repeated arguments many times, but it is you who ignores our responses and disappears when we attempt to refute them. As I indicated here, in the last instance you claimed van Elsuwege discusses "annexation", but when I pointed out (with page number) where van Elsuwege also concurs that the Baltic states were occupied for fifty years, you abruptly abandon the discussion!! So no wonder you cannot "remember" your old arguments being refuted, you never hang around long enough to hear them!. --Nug (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(To Igny's initial post) Since occupation and annexation are different only as a matter of your opinion and Russia's proclamations that you can't occupy what belongs to you, there is no unresolved dispute regarding the title. Annexation was merely an act in the continuum of Soviet occupation. Let's not start this again.

@Paul, you've proven yourself incapable of rational discussion of the USSR regarding the Baltics. I don't see what you hope to gain, editorially, here by jumping on Igny's bandwagon. Your "old arguments" have been conclusively refuted and your grossly prejudiced POV clearly documented by your own words. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dishonest?!

In his last post, Nug mentioned such a category as honesty ("This appears to be dishonest Paul..."). In connection to that, I have to ask the following question:

We all regard the Malksoo's book as one of reliable sourcea, and Lauri Malksoo himself as a reputable author. We had had a long dispute about some statement from his monograph, and we got explanations from himself [here. In his e-mail he writes:

" The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. If the article makes that aspect clear, I would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In fact, I would recommend such change because it takes more precisely (closer to the facts) into account the complex nature of the Soviet rule in the Baltic States."

Taking into account that we all agree that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal and created no extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR, and that the article in its present form explains that more than unequivocally, my question is:

"What is a reason for rejection of the Malksoo's recommendation?"

I tried to avoid using the term "dishonest" to describe the position of the users who rejected Malksoo's opinion (and who accuse me in incapability to conduct a rational discussion) however, I am afraid that that the word "dishonest" is the only appropriate characteristic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, unfortunately your past arguments have then moved on to take Malksoo's precision and misapply it, arguing that annexation created less of an occupation, it was more of an intervention, et al. Malksoo is also quite clear that "annexation" is not to change the fact of occupation. Additionally, this covers the entire period, so let's not rehash the Malksoo discussion.

Lastly, your prior contention that there's no (Soviet) occupation to complain about since the USSR committed the same crimes against humanity against its own citizens as it visited upon the citizens of the occupied Baltic states (my paraphrase) disqualifies you from the topic of Soviet occupation of anything. Accusing editors of dishonesty in light of your own morally outrageous contentions steps way over the line. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your first para, that is exactly what I meant: we have a clear and unequivocal explanation form Malksoo and vague and demagogic arguments from those who dislike it. And after that someone claim I am dishonest?

Re your second para, I believe that is a misunderstanding. I never claimed there were no occupation, or that the annexation was legal. My claim was that the repressions against the Baltic population did not differ in scale and brutality from the repression of the population of the USSR proper. I also claimed that, despite illegality of annexation, no specific occupation regime was established in the Baltic states, and that is also true. I see no morally outrageous contentions in that, just knowledge of the facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me summarize counter-arguments from my opponents so far.

irrelevant ("no-consensus" argument)
insults ("dick")
personal attacks ("incapable of rational discussion")
groundless (the "lack of sources" argument)
provocations ("morally outrageous contentions steps way over the line")
groundless accusations of Paul making personal attacks
clear demonstration of OWNing the article ("disqualifies you from the topic of Soviet occupation of anything")

Did I miss anything? (Igny (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

I would suggest to remove "dick", which was added by good faith Lothar, who seems to be satisfied with my explanations. With regard to the rest, I agree. I would add to that that no satisfactory explanation of the story with the Malksoo's e-mail has been provided (except vague references to some unspecified arguments that had allegedly been presented in past).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

So, Paul, let's see...

we have your contention that while Stalin invaded the Baltics, Truman bombed Japan and killed more innocents than Stalin killed in the Baltics, here; typical Soviet/Russian deflection tactics from the topic at hand, i.e., "Stalin a mass murdered? What about Truman?!?!..."
we have your contention that Latvians "semi-cooperated" with the Nazis because Hitler was gracious enough to consider them "semi-Aryan" here; actually Latvians were much closer to Jews than, say, the French on the official Aryan scale, but another topic; not to mention that after 700 years of German domination, there was no particular love for the Germans
we have your contention here that crimes against humanity committed against the nationals of occupied countries are "totally irrelevant," after all, Soviet citizens were subjected to the same crimes and we don't speak of the USSR being "occupied"; your backpedaling here that you merely stated that identical crimes against humanity were visited on all is a complete mischaracterization of your original statement--I regret there was no misunderstanding on my part

Igny, have I missed anything? I believe that covers all your references to my past statements.

Paul, as for "vague references," I am gobsmacked by your apparent amnesia. Perhaps you can save us time and re-read past discussions? I don't see any purpose to rehashing here simply because Igny showed up to continue from where he left off. Aren't there other articles of common interest to which we could both constructively contribute regardless of our editorial differences? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your 1, this was a part of totally different discussion, which had no relation to the "occupation/annexation" issue. If you want to continue it on the relevant talk page, feel free to do it.

Re your 2, that is just your personal contention. The sources say otherwise: "Because relatively few Germans could be spared for the vast territories Germany was to control, administrators would be procured from elsewhere: from the peoples judged to lie racially between the Germans and the Russians (Mittelschicht): Latvians, Estonians, and even Czechs." (Source: John Connelly. Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice. Central European History, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1999), pp. 1-33). And, again, that is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Re your 3, that is a direct misinterpretation of my position: there are occupations that are not accompanied with crimes against humanity, and some crimes against humanity are committed against its own population. Therefore, my argument is totally valid, and the fact that crimes against humanity took place in the Baltic stated during Soviet rule cannot serve as an argument in this dispute.

In summary, if there is no misunderstanding on your part, then it is a direct attempt to distract us from the subject of our dispute. However, I prefer to think that there is just a misunderstanding.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories: