Talk:Guerrilla war in the Baltic states

Requested move
Renata3 has proposed moving this article to Forest Brothers, saying that these article are identical. Well, whereas the Forest Brothers article is about the insurgents themselves, this article is about the insurgency itself, so in this article I was intending to expand it to discuss the wider war, taking into account the Soviet anti-insurgency policies and Western viewpoints. --Martin (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are splitting hairs here. While Forest Brothers is named after the insurgent themselves, it covers the war itself also. Renata (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I am convinced by your argument. Yes, Forest Brothers covers the war too, but is it the appropriate place? And how can you say this article is "identical" to the Forest Brothers when this article is a stub. As I said, I was intending to include information on the Soviet anti-insurgency tactics, I recently purchased Alexander Statiev's book The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands which goes into considerable detail. I'm sure the topic is big enough to be covered by a number of articles. --Martin (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an appropriate place. The two article would have almost identical scope (i.e. what they should include). It is impossible to separate this kind of war from the fighters. The two would essentially duplicate each other. The war, the tactics, the fighters, the politics, etc all belong in the same article -- and it's better to work with Forest Brothers as it is an older and more established article. Don't be shy to re-write Forest Brothers as you see fit -- it needs work. Renata (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well WikiProject Military history/Content guide suggests that articles be structured as War, Battle, Unit or Formation, Firearm and Base or Fortress. While these types are of course not binding, it does make sense. I had envisaged that Forest Brother be of the Formation type of article while this article be of the War type of article. Would Template:Infobox military conflict/doc in this article be appropriate to the Forest Brothers article, or would Template:Infobox war faction/doc be more appropriate? For example the Viet Cong article is a Formation article while the Tet Offensive is a Battle article, their respective info boxes reflect this. How would you merge the ledes, or is comparison to the Viet Cong objectionable? I note that Lithuanian partisans is substantially identical to the Forest Brother article. But you evidently feel strongly about this you can go right ahead and merge the article. I won't take up your invitation to rewrite the Forest Brothers article as I feel somewhat deflated. Regards, Martin (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC).
 * I am sorry! I did not want to deflate your enthusiasm :( Please don't feel discouraged! I just raised the question of the better place where to present the information. If you have a vision to clearly separate the two articles (war vs formation), then please do go ahead. My major objection is that Forest Brothers is in a bad shape and could certainly use some re-write/expansion rather than creation of a brand new article with substantially the same scope. Lithuanian partisans was a copy-paste creation of a blocked sock. It needs re-write and it's on my never-ending to-do list... Renata (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on the two articles together so they cover different aspects of the same conflict, the Forest Brothers focussing on the formation, discussing notable commanders and their units, etc, while this article can discuss the war in terms of the battles etc. How should I treat the Lithuanian partisans article? --Martin (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Renata3 is correct in saying that this article should be merged with the Forest Brothers. Weren't the Soviet partisans also waging a guerrilla war in the Baltic states? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They did, but that was between 1941 to 1944 during the Nazi occupation. This article spans the years 1944 to 1956. --Martin (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that the article should be given a chance. Forest Brothers may actually also refer to insurgency outside the Baltics (I've encountered the term in the context of Belarus of the 1920s, too). And choosing a somewhat different scope, e.g. paying more attention to the Soviet tactics might be a good idea (as Martin has noted he's ordered I book on that topic). Let us keep the separate article right now. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it would make a little more sense to call this article something like Soviet counterinsurgency in the Baltic states because The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands is the actual title of the book used to source the opening statement that "Guerilla war in the Baltic states refers to the armed struggle against Soviet rule that spanned from 1944 to the mid 1950s.[1]" (No page numbers are actually provided in the citation provided as a reference for that claim, so I can only make the assumption that the entire book is supposed to be used as a reference.) The present title is very ambiguous - many readers might think that it refers to the Soviet partisans' war, or even guerrilla activity in the Baltic states in general. I guess that the Forest Brothers insurgency would be even better, as that would encompass the Soviet response.
 * In addition, I think that one more problem is that this article will essentially become a content fork for the much more thorough Forest Brothers article as it expands, as the content relevant to their scope is basically interchangeable. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How can you predict it will be a content fork of the Forest Brothers article when this article is currently a stub. As I stated above, WikiProject Military history/Content guide suggests that articles be structured as War, Battle, Unit or Formation, Firearm and Base or Fortress. I had envisaged that Forest Brother be of the Formation type of article while this article be of the War type of article. See Template:Infobox military conflict/doc used in this article and the Template:Infobox war faction/doc used for the Forest Brothers article. For example the Viet Cong article is a Formation article while the Tet Offensive is a Battle article, their respective info boxes reflect this and overall those articles conform with WikiProject Military history guidelines. The intent is to do the same with Forest Brothers and this article, so the content will be orthogonal. As far as possible confusion with Soviet partisans' war, as far as I understand it, it was pretty well non existent in the Baltic states so I don't think there is any chance of confusion. --Martin (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about letting Martin do his thing and then decide? I take back my suggestion. Renata (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It still seems like an unnecessary duplicate to me. It doesn't even mention the Forest Brothers...H2ppyme (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge the Forest Brothers and Guerrilla war in the Baltic states articles under the name of Resistance in the Baltic States. Rationale: you seem to be involved in these articles and still active, hence my ping. Thanks. --Mindaur (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no substantial difference between these articles. The article on the Forest Brothers already describes the guerrilla war in the Baltic States, while the other article has been a stub for years. I see no good reason to keep them separate.
 * The proposed title is more generic: "resistance" includes "guerrilla war" (that is, "armed resistance"). The renamed article may also be expanded to include other forms of resistance and thus represent more coherent picture of these events in the history.
 * It is consistent with various other articles, e.g. French Resistance, Norwegian resistance movement, Italian resistance movement, Romanian anti-communist resistance movement, etc.


 * The articles should be merged, but not under generic and unspecific "resistance" title. In the case of the Baltic states, "resistance" could refer to many different periods -- resistance to Russian Empire, to Nazis, to Soviets -- it could also be armed or unarmed. Renata (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , I beg to differ on the use of "resistance":
 * The term seems to be a good fit for the encyclopedic use. Like already mentioned in the proposal, other articles use such description in this context and it would be a very consistent choice. It is also the wording I would expect the readers less familiar with this subject would search for. Meanwhile, "Forest Brothers" is a colloquialism in the Baltic States; "Guerrilla war" is better, it's just more specific wording for "armed resistance", but see my other points.
 * I have not seen a good reason why should the scope be more narrow. There was armed resistance, but there were other forms of resistance (e.g. diplomatic service in exile). Why should that be excluded? Why shouldn't this article present a more complete picture of these events in the history?
 * You have a point about the specific historical period and I was thinking about that as well. Several other articles on the same subject do not reflect the period or context, for whatever reason. However, we can build on existing precedents: Romanian anti-communist resistance movement and Anti-communist resistance in Poland (1944–1953). Would Anti-communist resistance in the Baltic States or Anti-Soviet resistance in the Baltic States address your concern? --Mindaur (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the articles should be merged. Probably "Guerrilla war in the Baltic states" is better. Dukurs (talk)


 * OK. In such case, I first intend to merge the articles under the "Guerrilla war in the Baltic states". We can continue discussing the title change as a next step. : why do you think the current title is better than my proposals above i.e. what are the arguments for/against?. See below. --Mindaur (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Rename proposal
Now that the articles are merged, I would like to get to the conclusion on the title. My preferrance would be one these: Just to reiterate the rationale: If you think the current title is better, then we may as well leave it as is, but I would be interested to hear your reasoning why. --Mindaur (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-Soviet resistance in the Baltic States
 * Anti-communist resistance in the Baltic States
 * Consistency with the other articles (see the listed precedents in a section above). It is the wording I would expect the readers less familiar with this subject would search for.
 * "Resistance" is a broader term and a good fit for the encyclopedic use. The article could be improved to briefly cover, for example, the diplomatic service in exile and transformation of armed resistance to dissident movements.
 * I think this title should not be changed. The article is about the armed struggle which is the special phenomenon itself. Dukurs (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can try to convince you. If we talk about terminology, then "guerrilla war" is "armed resistance" and the broader term "resistance" includes it. If you are worried that the word "resistance" somehow diminishes the fact that it was "armed struggle", then I think it's not the case: . In a mind of an English speaker, I think "resistance" is very much associated with taking up the arms and fighting.
 * These terms are similar, but there are probably some cultural or associative differences. I'd argue that "guerrilla war" is perhaps more often associated with the guerrilla movements in Latin America (think of Che Guevara) or South East Asia (think of Viet Cong), while "resistance" is perhaps more often associated with the European armed struggles in the context of World War 2 (again, perhaps due to the French resistance and popular culture, not excluding notorious creations like Casablanca (film)). So, my point is: "resistance" has an established meaning in the English language. In the Baltic and potentially other languages, other terms might have stronger associations. However, this is English Wikipedia.
 * Regarding the resistance in the Baltic States: it was not just guerrilla war, in a narrow sense of armed groups moving to the forests. It included other forms: Estonian government-in-exile, Lithuanian diplomatic service and Latvian diplomatic service in exile, struggle to the preserve legal continuity, then later armed resistance transformed into protests and unrest, underground movements and press, dissident movements and more (note: these belong in the "Aftermath" section). Hence, the broader picture of resistance could be coherently presented under this article. Is there something specific you are concerned about in taking this direction? --Mindaur (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

What about the Forest Brothers in 1905 Revolution? If this article were to include the 1905 Forest Brothers, (possibly with an expansion of this topic,) then "Anti-Soviet resistance" or "Anti-Communist resistance" would definitely be inappropriate, since their resistance was against Tsarist Russia, whereas at that time Soviets and Bolsheviks (later renamed Communists) were still their fellow revolutionaries. Smallbearwj (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't, because it's a separate topic: different historical context, different parties of the conflict and different nature of the conflict. Other than the origins of the words/expression, I hardly see how is that relevant here. --Mindaur (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Soviet casualties
According to Россия и СССР в войнах ХХ века. Книга потерь, published 2010, ISBN 978-5-9533-4676-5, p.572, Soviets have suffered 575 killed and 878 wounded during the entire post-war Baltic resistance, of which NKVD/NKGB lost 533 killed, 784 wounded and the Soviet army lost 42 killed and 94 wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.194.77 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Dubious
Janis Pinups was not a partisan, therefore how can he be considered a "Forest Brother"? According to his biography he never took any part in this conflict! 2.29.206.252 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This source claims otherwise: . -- Mindaur (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That source specifically states he was not a partisan. Amatama (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have taken matters into my own hands. If someone feels strongly about it then we can discuss it. I am curious to know if he's called The last Forest Brother in Latvian sources or just English-language reporting. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Why are the Baltic states lumped together?
Why are the Baltic states lumped together? Their only similarity is geographical proximity and opposition to the same enemy - the USSR. Besides that, there was rather little coordination between them (to my knowledge), except somewhat rare cases where Lithuanian and Latvian partisans joined efforts in local actions. But that hardly merits an united article for all of them in my view, considering lack of overlap between the various groups of anti-Communist partisans.

It also seems strange to me that the articles for Lithuanian partisans and Estonian partisans include dates for their countries' guerilla wars against the Soviet Union, despite their article titles being about the groups, not the conflict sensu stricto. Should the articles about the partisans be retitled as "Lithuanian anti-Soviet guerrilla war" and "Estonian anti-Soviet guerrilla war" respectively? I think this topic is neglected and deserving of more attention, but it seems that even the very foundation demands attention. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The three Baltic States share the historical and geopolitical context, chronology of the events and fate (military-political outcomes). The level of their cooperation or a lack of thereof is immaterial. There would be a lot of duplication in the individual articles. In terms of WP:RS, there are plenty of studies on the Baltic States together, just like there are studies on their individual history. We already have articles specifically on the partisans of each country and that seems fine. Therefore, I would rather see the effort on improving the current article instead of splitting it into three articles which are more likely to end up half-baked. For a comparison, we have the Occupation of the Baltic states which is a level-5 vital article in history. It's high quality, it serves well and it's a good example to follow. -- Mindaur (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)