Misplaced Pages

Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BlueRobot116 (talk | contribs) at 14:06, 29 January 2023 (→German rule "less harsh" than Soviet rule.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:06, 29 January 2023 by BlueRobot116 (talk | contribs) (→German rule "less harsh" than Soviet rule.: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
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: 3 months 

Template:Vital article

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 iconEstonia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconOccupation 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLatvia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconLithuania Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconGermany Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union: Russia / History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Baltic states / European / German / Russian & Soviet / World War II
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Baltic states military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force


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 is that most people believe that "occupation" is something obviously bad and illegal, whereas "annexation" is something more neutral and legal. That is not true: they just describe two different things. "Occupation" is an intrinsically temporary phenomenon, and occupied territories have a different legal status according to domestic laws of the occupying state. Thus, an occupied territory always has a different legal status, and the population of the occupied territory do not fall completely under the occupying state's jurisdiction (some special IDs are usually issued to them). These as well as many other aspects are stipulated by Geneva conventions. Thus, after the fall of the Third Reich, the Allies had to invent the occupatio sui generis and debellatio concepts to make Nuremberg Trials possible. Indeed the actions of Nazi leaders were in full accordance with Nazi Germany's laws, and, since, per Geneva conventions, the citizens of the occupied state do not fall under the occupying state's jurisdiction, the Nuremberg trials would be impossible if Germany had a status of an occupied state.
In contrast, "annexation" is a complete and permanent incorporation of some territory into another state. Clearly, that is what happened in Baltic states (and Crimea) falls under the definition of "annexation", and, therefore, that should be described as such.
However, there is one big problem here. According to Geneva conventions, occupied territories cannot be annexed. Therefore, both Crimean and Baltic cases should be described as "illegal annexation as a result of military occupation". The problem is that most writers do not understand those nuances, and apply the term "occupation" to the Baltic case (as if some military administration existed in the Baltic states during the whole period of 1940-91, and the Baltic citizens has some specific IDs, different from Soviet passports, and they had different political and civil rights etc). However, if that is the case, that automatically means that, e.g. Vilnius must be returned to Poland (for obvious reasons), and so on. To avoid that problem, an Estonian scholar Malksoo applied the term occupatio sui generis to the Baltic states, but as he concluded, only 1940 naval blockade was the reason to conclude so. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Creation of a civilian administration in an occupied territory does not necessarily end the occupation. Contrary to some claims, there existed a mighty Soviet military administration in Estonia (resp. Latvia, Lithuania) not just during active armed guerilla resistance, but during the whole period of 1944-91; the Soviet military administration was not reporting to any Estonian civilian authorities, although the Soviet military had exclusive control over large areas of Estonian land and sea; and over hundreds of thousands of military personnel and family members (who all had specific ID documents, different from Estonian civilians'). Moreover, even though Soviet military forcibly conscripted men from occupied Estonia (in violation of another Geneva convention) the Estonian conscripts specifically did not have a right to do the military service in Estonia. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... It certainly looked like a foreign military occupation, and the Soviets military acted like occupiers with no Estonian participation nor any civilian oversight, so not surprisingly most Estonians (resp. Latvians and Lithuanians) as well as many political leaders in the free world also considered it an occupation from 1944 until 1991.3 Löwi (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you mean a Baltic military district? If that is what you mean, then I will disappoint you: the whole USSR territory was divided among military districts (Central military district, Volga-Ural military district, Trans-Caucasus military district etc) . That does not put those territories under military occupation. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Similarly, the administration of other military districts was not reporting to local civilian administration in Central Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. Soviet military conscripted men in e.g. Moscow in the same way as in, e.g. Tallinn: it was compulsory conscription, and the status of Estonian conscripts was identical to the status of Russian ones. Of course, by saying "identical" I meant "identical from the point of view of domestic Soviet laws". That creates a problem: from one hand, the Baltic states were fully incorporated into the Soviet Union and their status was identical to that of other Soviet territories, which does not allow us to claim the Baltic states were the territories under military occupation. From another hand, the annexation was preceded by military occupation in 1940, which makes the former illegal. As I already explained that is a very complicated and controversial issue, which had no precedents in history, and which should be treated as some unique event. Therefore, your "duck" arguments are superficial and hardly productive. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

German rule "less harsh" than Soviet rule.

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

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

Categories: