Talk:Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940)

Occupation or Annexation?
I'm surprised that English Wikipedia decided to present a completely one-sided and verifiably inaccurate terminology in the name of this article. Let me be clear - whatever we might feel about legitimacy of control of certain territories, there are specific terms used for various types of said control. In this case, we're dealing with annexation, of which modern examples would be, for example, Jerusalem (Jerusalem Law) or Crimea (Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation). In fact Annexation of Baltic Republics just redirects here, so the term is at the very least also accepted. I could provide modern examples of occupation as well - Iraq (occupation of Iraq), or Israeli occupation of the West Bank fit the bill perfectly. Occupation is commonly understood as Military occupation, and certainly this is what is implied in this case (it doesn't seem to have much to do with a job, protest, or residency), and on the page of its very own it is described as following:

Occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.

I don't know anything about any "temporary nature" intended for annexations of 1940, nor was it strictly military (with civilian rule established immediately), nor of any denial of citizenship rights, with Baltic citizens often rising to near the very top of the Soviet ruling classes (just one example being Boris Pugo, who was a Minister of Internal Affairs, and, briefly, one of the members of the collective leadership of USSR during GKChP) and always controlling the top positions in their own republics.

Annexation is not necessarily better than occupation - Czech lands were annexed as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia by the Nazis 1939. On the other hand, Cuba was briefly under military occupation during the Spanish–American War, which ended with the island obtaining its independence. What I don't understand is why does the Wikipedia insist on using the wrong terminology in order to make a political statement on behalf of the post-1991 governments of the Baltic States, who, unlike Finland, were quite peacefully annexed by the USSR, whatever the legality of the action would be in retrospect. In fact, annexations are, unlike occupations, rarely legal. Occupation of Germany certainly was legal, while annexation of Austria (aka Anschluß) would rarely be considered as such.

So, please, be so kind as to explain to me why I shouldn't switch the name of this page to Soviet annexation of the Baltic States (1940) with the current name working as a redirect for the proper title? I mean - really? Because outside of political considerations, there are literally no solid reasons to keep things as they are. Commissar of His Imperial Majesty, Metropolitan of the Politbureau CK CPSU, Serene Prince of the Council of People&#39;s Commissars - idio3. (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just went ahead and moved it. If anyone disagrees, I welcome the opportunity to hear your reasons - but please do provide them. Commissar of His Imperial Majesty, Metropolitan of the Politbureau CK CPSU, Serene Prince of the Council of People&#39;s Commissars - idio3. (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your page move, please get agreement before moving these pages. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Did the Baltic states accept the ultimatums?
Lithuania certainly did, and so did Latvia and Estonia according to the Russian wikipedia. If they did, this should be stated explicitly and not obscured. The current wording, omitting said fact, implies that the entries of Soviet troops and the establishment of pro-Soviet governments happened completely illegally and violently, without the consent of the Baltic governments, and this seems to be false. Moreover, this makes the descriptions of these events as 'invasions' and 'coups' highly debatable, since both were the results of the legitimate governments' acceptance of the ultimatums. Now, the open threat of invasion arguably made these actions morally equivalent to invasions and coups, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that this is also the case de jure. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_(1940&redirect=no Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)