Talk:Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940)/Archive 1

Annexation
I've taken the word "illegal" out from before "annexation". All I can see from the sources is that the manner in which the territories were included within the Soviet Union were violent and unpleasant with sleazy tactics. Nobody can offer evidence however as to why this is illegal under international law - what we need to know for example is how the move violated the Right of Conquest and this in turn requires actual sources, not editors resorting to original research. The bloody manner in which the lands were forced into the powerful state is in no way different to how many states expanded their borders though adventures such as the Scramble for Africa and similar instances throughout the world - in addition, the colonial powers continue to have sovereignty over regions of the world captured in a similar way to the Baltics entering the USSR. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The so-called right of conquest ended at the start of the 20th century. The annexation was illegal because it was done by parliaments installed by the occupying power through falsified elections and done in violation of the constitution(s) of the states involved; lastly, in violation of prior agreements which stipulated that there were no circumstances under which force could be used between states. Don't believe everything you hear in Russian media. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well all right. I believe you but where are these points stipulated for one, and which reliable sources support that? By the way, falsifying results IS rigging elections, you're not rigging a vote if you produce truthful results. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, "rigging" would be the only Soviet-approved candidates portion of the elections and forcing individuals to go vote or be shot. On top of that, however, the results themselves were falsified and announced prior to the elections being completed—apparently too eager to release results.
 * Sources in Western scholarship on the illegality of Soviet actions are endless. Russian scholarship is divided: some sticks to the facts, some sticks to the Soviet version, including, for example, the Duma's proclamation to "remind deputies of the Latvian Seima that Latvia's being a part of the Soviet Union was grounded by fact and by law from the international juridical point of view" (July 8, 1990), that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. There is no reputable scholarship which supports that position. I suggest works by John Hiden and William Hough, both are widely cited regarding the Baltics and neither can be faulted as being Baltic nationalists with some POV axe to grind.
 * I am bound to accept your inquiry as being one done in good faith; and so I am also bound to ask you exactly where you've been getting your education regarding the history of the Baltics. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure some will assault me for my personal propaganda site(s)—I can find the diffs of past personal attacks in that regard. That said, August Rumpēters' monograph provides an excellent summary despite the inevitable denouncements of his reliability based purely on his name, available here.
 * Also, the title of Hough's work that I specifically have in mind is "THE ANNEXATION OF THE BALTIC STATES AND ITS EFFECT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAW PROHIBITING FORCIBLE SEIZURE OF TERRITORY." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I make no secret of the fact that I have no knowledge on the subject beyond these basic elements. My area is the Balkans and southeastern Europe where my output can be a lot stronger but once again, I am no expert - I just happen to be British-born of former Yugoslav stock! You're aware that most of the legal claims on the Baltic annexation comes from Russian sources or accounts by the vestiges of the Soviet Union, the rest - I can't say was endless given I did look - seems to be from everywhere else. You may be pleased to know that I shall not be editing in this field for now so anything you save will face no resistance from me, I simply don't know enough. I have made a number of observations though: in the first place, it makes no difference to me the number of sources that testify to or acknowledge a specific viewpoint in relation to those that oppose it, I am more interested in the quality of the argument itself. A case in point away from this region is Zimbabwe and the attitude towards Mugabe. His international detractors heavily outweigh his sympathisers yet I could not possibly take BBC sources as reliable. They and so many others earnt their ban from the country by using sneaky tactics to glorify his opposition and discredit his governance at the same time. Far from it being brilliant and fair, the inflation stalled and the economy has slowly started to grow again since 2009, food returning to shelves, etc. Only Al-Jazeera was previously reporting this outside Zimbabwe's own state publications which I happen to read, just as Al-Jazeera had been the only news outlet on mainstream British television to acknowledge that the election-based violence in 2008 involved both ZANU PF (Mugabe)'s supporters attacking MDC (Tsvangirai) loyalists and the very same vice-versa; western media only mentioned the first, they didn't deny the latter - they merely ignored it. That to me - if proven true - would have placed a completely different complection on matters. It wasn't one tyrant unleashing aggression on one opposition group but two would-be oppressors resorting to the same repugnant tactics!


 * Back to the Baltic. Reading the sources for and against occupation, I am neither impressed nor convinced by anyone's argument. As in my original post, all I see is a gruesome ploy to have captured the region but no disclosure as to how it was illegal. Right of Conquest may had expired by 1940 but what replaced it? What were the law codes and the protocols? And where there are hints of proper and improper procedure, there is disagreement among sources as to how it really happened. The actual reason I took an interest here is because before this outrage in Estonia some years back when anti-Communist Estonian demonstrators disrupted a Soviet commemoration (with mostly Russians), I didn't even know about this alleged occupation theory; and if I don't, who does? Since the Baltic countries were de facto Soviet entities, most of the world wouldn't think twice about the legal status. Ask anyone in the UK what Latvia was before 1991 and just about everyone will say Russia or USSR. This is why I believe that when we address the matter, we need to box clever so as to impart the two-way opinions. Perpetually stating Estonia was occupied by the Soviets when Ukraine wasn't serves only to confuse and create doubt because not many people who read English Wikipedia know very much about the Baltic lands. Then there are the infoboxes on sports personalities, I always add Latvian SSR, Soviet Union to the birthplaces and this has never met stiff resistance from established editors. Half the citations of the Soviet Union on Wikipedia ackowledge the Baltic lands as intergral and the other half support the occupation theory. There is widespread inconsistency. My only intention is to draw a line and set a standard. Perhaps a template note explaining the facts as we have with Kosovo would be a good help.


 * The final observation I have made is true WP:OR and can never be used in the article. Here is where I exert the only knowledge I have. I keep reading that the Soviet inclusion of Baltic states was not recognised internationally. To my knowledge there were indeed a handful of states that maintained their Baltic country diplomatic missions (embassies/consulates), this surmises that remnants of the ousted authorities continued in exile. The rest of the world identified the Baltic lands with the USSR. Also, it does not help the case of the Baltic countries to know that in 1991, they declared independence, from whom? They were "occupied". By doing this, they acceded to the authority of their Soviet host and legitimised the union. The ourpouring of recognitions which followed beginning with Iceland further testifies that they were very much recognised as legally Soviet. So anything pointing towards occupation be it from non-affiliated scholars is nothing more than the conjecture Noel Malcolm entertains when preaching that Kosovo's incorporation into Serbia in 1912 was illegal and amounted to occupation right until 1928. Surprise surpise, Kosovar Albanians agree with him! But in truth, the man only plagiarised the published renditions of Albanian historians. Anyhow, compare all of this to Kuwait following Iraq's occupation and annexation in 1990. Saddam declared Kuwait the 19th province of Iraq. In 1991, the First Gulf War repelled him and Kuwaiti control was restored. However, Kuwait did not declare inependence! So why did Estonia? An illegal annexation is an illegal annexation, Kuwait's authorities exercised no control over their land following their capitulation and Kuwaiti's newly installed authorities comprised loyalists to Iraq. When you think about it, if they did declare independence and make the day in question a public holiday, Iraq would to this day have ammunition to retake a land which admitted being part of its territorial integrity. Or could it be that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia remain illegal territories to this very day? After all, they declared independence thus giving legal consent to the "occupier", plus it was not as though the pre-1991 authorities were ousted, leading figures from these nations' Communist parties were the ones who led them to independence, such as Algirdas Brazauskas of Lithuania. Illegal then=illegal now - only persons claiming continuity from the regime which repeatedly incarcerated Antanas Sniečkus before his appointment can be the legal Lithuanian representation, and they in turn cannot have accepted Brazauskas no matter how constructive he was in bringing an end to the Lithuanian SSR: Sniečkus&mdash;Brazauskas are part of a continuum. Of course, this would all be possible if pre-occupation remnants also succumbed to Soviet sovereignty.


 * All in all concerning 1940 Baltic countries, we need to know what was legal and what wasn't. As occupation is precisely that, once it is annexed, it is no longer an occupation. However, if the annexation is illegal as is being claimed here, it correctly remains an occupation. This article contains the words occupation and annexation implying that these are two grades of governance, moreover that the annexation is legal. Moving the page to Occupation and illegal annexation might fit the bill but then if it is illegal, the annexation remains merely a subcategory of the occupation and does not deserve a special reference independent of occupation. That's all Vecrumba, this was long but I don't know any more than this. There may be a few misgivings but I did say that everything I am producing is original research. Thanks for reading. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both occupation and annexation are in the title as some editors maintain that annexation terminated occupation or made it somehow not truly an occupation (e.g. invasion was more of an "intervention"). I completely agree with annexation being an event subservient to occupation. With regard to the Baltics, all had been independent prior to WWII. During WWII, all had vested sovereign authority in governments in exile or legations. In all cases there was a subsequent formal (that is, not entirely symbolic) re-vesting of that sovereign authority back in the domestic authorities in the Baltics who had declared independence—that is, closing the loop, making the post-Soviet Baltics continuations of their pre-war selves and resuming that independence. In any event, declaring independence from occupation does not legitimize that occupation. With regard to communist authorities, who was a communist because everyone had to be a communist to achieve any professional or political standing and who was a communist because they were an avid champion of Soviet oppression remains a hot topic of discussion, even > 20 years later.
 * As for the Bronze Night commotion which you mention but not by name, nothing was being torn down, no remains were being desecrated (as widely reported, and not just in the Russian press). The original Estonian anti-communist demonstrators—during the Soviet war veterans remembrance at the site—were told to go home and obeyed. What followed was certainly inflamed by extremists on both sides and, particularly, by Russian authorities.
 * Lastly, with regard to what occupation or the end thereof is like, or not like, another, is an interesting discussion; however, each case needs to be discussed on its own. Prior cases can set precedents in international law, but no case is ever "like" another. (The Baltics were, in fact, one of those precedent setting cases.) Feel free to discuss any specific case on my user talk. Best, VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right that each case is its own. Naturally declaring independence does not legitimise a previous host per se if it honestly were illegal but it does reveal that the body making the proclamation has succumbed to that status. There have been many occupations in history but these are the only ones I've known declare independence. The extended timeframe does complicate things, I'll grant you; and as for which politicians were Soviets and which were using the Communist platform as it was the only means is something I can answer for you here and now - take it from me, not ONE of them was sincere; no politician on this planet is or ever has been sincere, check any individual's past and you'll see contardictions left right and centre. They serve the interests of their sponsors and their affiliation is where the wind blows for them!! The late British MP Robin Cook was an anti-war activist in his youth, a prominent Labour figure when his party was more to the left; reforms in the 1990s and the nation growing tired of Conservative rule propelled them into power in 1997 and he became Foreign Secretary. He was instrumental in the NATO campaign in Yugoslavia in 1999, then in 2001 he was removed from his post following Labour re-election and demoted to ceremonial Leader of the House; relations between Blair and him soured and would never recover. When the Iraq war chapter resurfaced, Cook remained an opponent of British involvement and was one of the Labour MPs to stage a walk-out in Parliament and denounce his post. I would be very curious to know if he still would have done this had he remained in the Foreign Office when not one front-bencher joined the rebels. Conservative Malcolm Rifkind was Foreign Secretary in the NATO operation which bombed the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 to end the Bosnian War but come 1999 when there were NATO airstrikes over the Kosovo crisis, he - no longer in office - opposed the actions. Don't believe any of them!!!! Or ask yourself, why would people with genuine anti-Communist beliefs be members of a regime that suppresses their true thoughts. It is far easier to operate from a haven abroad and be instrumental and open. Assassinations and other elimination methods abound even within party circles, you don't have to be an active opposition member. As for the Bronze Night event, I don't recall too much and I certainly don't remember it being nasty. I was making no accusations except that anti-Communists did make an appearance and there had been a stand-off between rival groups. Also, I knew the Baltic countries were independent before WWII. They were for a short time a part of an earlier Soviet state around the end of WWI time (1917-19 I think) when Communism had some more popularity among ordinary people but independence was restored and exercised until the Soviet/Nazi occupation period. As I did say though, I observed a few things but where they fit into international legislation is something I am not qualified to judge. Just so you know - from here onward, advice which I will need for presentation reasons will be posted on your talk. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The illegality of the annexation is established in several sources, such as this and this. I entirely agree with your statement; "However, if the annexation is illegal as is being claimed here, it correctly remains an occupation. This article contains the words occupation and annexation implying that these are two grades of governance, moreover that the annexation is legal. Moving the page to Occupation and illegal annexation might fit the bill but then if it is illegal, the annexation remains merely a subcategory of the occupation and does not deserve a special reference independent of occupation.", the reason we have the current title is that some Wikipedians in the past did not accept what is published in reliable sources. But I'm all for renaming this article. --Nug (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other topic, I have been following the Balkans for years and one can only cry over what has gone on there. In particular, whether Ireland or the Balkans or elsewhere, a people of an identical cultural heritage killing each other off because of historical happenstance (religion) is the greatest and most tragic waste of life; the politicization, polarization and amplification of the conflict there by outside parties for their own agendas is morally grotesque. I'll get off the soapbox now. (Speakers' Corner, isn't it?) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Nug, yes those are definitely sources to support the illegal annexation claim. Because of common beliefs, it is hard to make radical moves which include such a word as "illegal" as it raises NPOV alarms whenever one looks at it; remember the common theory that the de facto situation is the most widely embraced and sometimes it can be better to settle with that (I speak of some non-political articles where simplicity is required in that section). @ Vecrumba - don't worry, you're not standing on a soapbox because everything discussed pertains to the article even we all have to occasionally raise instances that are off-topic. Yes the Balkan chapter was sad and they were fools to themselves, all of them who got involved. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Evlekis. I have some comments to what you say. Firstly, one minor comment. Your understanding of early history of the Baltic states is incorrect. You write "They were for a short time a part of an earlier Soviet state around the end of WWI time (1917-19 I think) when Communism had some more popularity among ordinary people but independence was restored and exercised until the Soviet/Nazi occupation period. " Independence of two out of three Baltic states was not restored: the Baltic states (in the contemporary meaning of this word) had never existed before the WWI. The indigenous population of this territory enever had their own state: during various periods of time they were under a control of Slav (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), German, Swedish, Danish or Russian monarchies. Therefore, we can speak just about creation of those states after the WWI.
 * Secondly, the dispute about occupation has long history, and one party (to which I, as well as some other users belong) insists that various viewpoints exists on this account. Some sources speak about forcible incorporation, illegal annexation, annexation or absorption of the Baltic states by the USSR in 1940, whereas other sources characterise this event as "occupation". Therefore, we insist that all those terms must be used in the whole series of the articles devoted to this subject (some of which should be renamed). The simplest demonstration of the validity of this approach is the result of the following google scholar searches:
 * ""occupation of the Baltic states" Soviet -annexation" [ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22occupation+of+the+Baltic+states%22+Soviet+-annexation&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 232 results]
 * ""annexation of the Baltic states" Soviet -occupation" [ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22annexation+of+the+Baltic+states%22+Soviet+-occupation&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 155 results]
 * By contrast, the opposite party (Nug, Vecrumba and some others) insist that, since some reliable sources confirm that the Baltic states were occupied, the event should be described as "occupation", and only "occupation".
 * That is a brief description of the long dispute as I see it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Google results. Again. Unfortunately, the viewpoint the Baltic states were NOT forcibly incorporated is ultra-fringe. The viewpoint that they were NOT occupied is a proclamation of the Russian Duma (odd, given the Soviet Union was about to admit they were occupied when it all fell apart) and ultra-fringe, and whether called part of, absorbed, subsumed, sublimated or eaten, none of those words change occupation and illegal annexation. Nor does annexation in any manner replace occupation. There is no either/or, so I will thank you to stop pushing your POV that there are many explanations and viewpoints (not forcible, not illegal, not occupied,...) when, in fact, there is only one position supported by reliable scholarship. You insist on advocating for "more of an intervention" when even Mälksoo, whose scholarship you appear to respect in statements elsewhere, states "crushed and occupied." Don't make me find your "more of an intervention" diff. I can go on, but I'll spare you. You appear to wish to bring this issue to a head, so let's go ahead and resolve this once and for all. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I regret to have to note that your "validity" is the very definition of synthesis as it removes all discussion of sources. "But the search is limited to Google Scholar, making it valid." No. No. And, as a wise professor once told me things have to be repeated three times to take, no. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective quoting again? You selectively quote Malksoo, myself, and, I am afraid the sources you use also were selected to support your views, that is why you reject my gscholar result. That is not how Wikipedia works. If you see any flaw with the choice of keywords, feel free to propose your own keywords. If you don't believe to gscholar, explain (with sources) why its results are unreliable. You may also propose alternative search engines (Scopus, Jstor, ISI Web of knowledge), and so on. However, I need a demonstration that you use a neutral and objective approach to selection of literature. I got no such evidences so far (despite my numerous requests).
 * Regarding your "the viewpoint the Baltic states were NOT forcibly incorporated is ultra-fringe", You are pushing against an open door: who claims that? However, I believe you will not claim that the following statement:
 * "During 40s-80s, the Baltic states were de facto part of the USSR, and that was recognized by majority of states, except Iceland, the US and Vatican."
 * is not a mainstream point of view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that relying upon gscholar term searches to advance your position is OR, you have not provided any published source that advances the viewpoint you are proposing. Not only is it OR, but it is logically flawed, your premise for the search terms is a propositional fallacy as it assumes that "occupation" and "annexation" must be mutually exclusive, when in fact both "occupation" and "(illegal) annexation" are applicable in this case. And that is why you cannot find any published source to support your viewpoint, as no scholar would commit such a basic logical fallacy to print. --Nug (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that you do not understand our policy? Whereas I cannot add any statement to the article based on my search, I can and should choose the most widespread terminology used in literature, and that can be achieved only by making as neutral literature search as possible. Re ""occupation" and "annexation" must be mutually exclusive", that is de facto the case, as I demonstrated it elsewhere. However, even if we leave this question beyond the scope, this result demonstrates that the sources that use those terms form two sets that do not intersect much.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "de facto" case of separation of occupation and annexation, that is your personal synthesis. There is no reliable source which states that Soviet annexation of the Baltic states terminated Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. You point to Google searches and your personal interpretation thereof (and invoke "policy" to deride editorial opposition) because there is no reputable mainstream scholarship supporting your synthesis. BTW, your search returns the tsarist annexation of Livonia as its first result.
 * P.S. I should mention the Soviet and now Russian position is that no Baltic territory was ever occupied and that no Baltic territory was ever annexed (i.e., a territorial action instigated by the USSR). As no one has ever produced corroborating scholarship for this position, as expressed in the Duma's declaration reminding Latvia it joined the Soviet Union in fully in accordance with international law, this is a version of events with no basis in historical fact, as opposed to valid scholarship. Putting baseless opinion on par with reputable scholarship is against policy.
 * And on "During 40s-80s, the Baltic states were de facto part of the USSR", that does not mean they were not forcibly incorporated. That is your personal interpretation, again, not reflecting historical fact or circumstance. "De facto" + "part of" is irrelevant with regard to occupation. I do not insist that ONLY "occupation" can be used for the duration, I only reflect reliable scholarship that "occupation" applies for the duration. Whatever else—annexation, part of, absorbed, et al.—occurred or is used to describe events does not change the status of occupation by the Soviet Union. (That they do is, again, more of your personal synthesis.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You replace my statement with another, much stronger statement, which is easier to refute. That is hardly an honest way to conduct a discussion.
 * Regarding "synthesis", please, explain what concrete my synthetic statement do you mean?
 * Re forcible incorporation etc, please, provide a source that confirms that the Baltic states had a status of occupied territory within the USSR, along with the evidence that this view is the sole mainstream viewpoint. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the purpose is to choose the most widespread terminology then "occupation of the Baltic states" is more widespread with 232 results compared with "annexation of the Baltic states" with only 155 results. Your assertion that occupation and de facto annexation are mutually exclusive is absolutely incorrect. De facto annexation is a tautology. The term "annexation", which is defined as "the de jure incorporation of some territory", so "de facto annexation" would be "de facto de jure incorporation", which is nonsense. Your argument relies upon the ambiguity of the term "annexation". Whether or not a country internally treats seized territory as occupied is irrelevant if the international community does not recognise that seizure and regards it as an occupation. I say again, your argument is not explicitly supported by any published source and is your own synthesis. Relying solely on Google search hits as the basis of your view is OR. --Nug (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Paul, regarding your
 * "Re forcible incorporation etc, please, provide a source that confirms that the Baltic states had a status of occupied territory within the USSR, along with the evidence that this view is the sole mainstream viewpoint."
 * Your request conclusively demonstrates, I regret to observe, your completely POV and bogus approach to the subject matter. With regard to the status of the Baltic SSRs within the Soviet Union, they were (according to the Soviet Union and the Soviet installed puppet governments only) prior independent sovereign states which voluntarily and of their own accord petitioned the USSR for membership, under whose constitution they were subsequently, ostensibly, subordinate in federal matters but otherwise sovereign members of a federated state. That the USSR never regarded the Baltic states as occupied nor, indeed, invaded "under the terms of" the mutual assistance pact, does not make the action of the USSR not an invasion and their presence not an occupation. Not an invasion (your "more of an intervention"), not an occupation, legally joined according to international law, et al. are the Soviet/official Russian position—which I myself have documented in article content in the past. That position does not have any support with regard to a basis in fact. It is not another scholarly viewpoint. That the Baltics were invaded and forcibly and illegally incorporated, meaning, occupied for the duration, is the mainstream view for which dozens of scholarly sources have been provided over the years. Advocating that "versions" of history based on lies are synonymous with "viewpoints" of history based on a common, agreed upon, set of historical fact is contrary to WP policy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, not only did the USSR deny occupying the Baltic states, but the also denied having annexed them as well, claiming the Baltic States voluntarily joined as sovereign Soviet republics. So to turn Paul's request on its head: Paul, please provide a source that confirms that the Baltic states had a status of annexed territory within the USSR. --Nug (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no desire to discuss Stalinist viewpoint. Whereas the Soviet view should be mentioned in the article, it should be discussed only as a historical fact, not as majority or significant minority views. Let's better focus on what reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Nug. Re 232 results vs 155 results, you ignore the fact (you are perfectly aware of) that "occupation of the Baltic states" may refer to their occupation by Germany (thus, the source #6 tells about that event). In contrast, "annexation" is just one of alternative terms used in literature. Other terms are "absorption" (74 hits), "incorporation" 393 hits (or 136 using redundantly stringent keywords choice). Therefore, majority of sources do not use "occupation".
 * Re your de jure and de facto, you mix two things. For some unclear reason, you assume that when annexation of some territory is not internationally recognised, this territory is deemed occupied. Moreover, you claim that that was true also for pre-1949 international laws. Both of those facts need to be confirmed. As we all know, most world states de facto recognised annexation of the Baltic states. The only exceptions were the US, Iceland and Vatican. In connection to that, I am wondering what is a ground for your statement that these territories were deemed occupied by international community? Please, provide reliable mainstream source that proves (i) that in 1940s, the lack of international recognition of annexation was sufficient to consider this territory occupied, and (ii) that during 1940s-80s, international community considered the Baltic states as the occupied territory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is nonsense Paul, I can play Google search games too:
 * Terms' usage as a period or duration:
 * "during the soviet annexation" +baltic 6 hits
 * "during the soviet occupation" baltic 521 hits


 * "period of soviet annexation" baltic 9 hits
 * "period of soviet occupation" baltic 173 hits


 * "years of annexation" baltic 11 hits
 * "years of occupation" baltic 425 hits


 * "years of soviet annexation" baltic 8 hits
 * "years of soviet occupation" baltic 377 hits


 * Terms' usage as an event or act
 * "act of annexation" baltic 46 hits
 * "act of occupation" baltic 7 hits


 * "annexation in 1940" baltic 640 hits
 * "occupation in 1940" baltic 372 hits


 * "after annexation" baltic 185 hits
 * "after occupation" baltic 138 hits


 * "before annexation" baltic 69 hits
 * "before occupation" baltic 47 hits


 * To exemplify that term "annexation" predominately refers to the event in 1940:
 * "annexation in 1944" baltic" 5 hits
 * "occupation in 1944" baltic 97 hits

I have posted sources many times before, so your repeated calls for sources appear to be tendentious. But I'll repost them here from the archives: This is supported by multiple sources, for a summary example:
 * "The Soviet occupation and annexation of 1940-41, the German occupation of 1941-44, and the Soviet reoccupation of 1944" p421 Historical dictionary of Estonia By Toivo Miljan
 * "There were three successive periods of occupation: the first Soviet occupation, 1940-1; the Nazi occupation from 1941 to 1944-5; and the second Soviet occupation starting in 1944." p85 The Oxford companion to World War II edited by Ian Dear, Michael Richard Daniell Foot
 * "During 1941 to 1944 the Baltic countries were under German occupation and subsequently in 1944 and 1945 the second Soviet occupation began which lasted for close to 50 years." Childbearing trends and prospects in low-fertility countries: a cohort analysis By Tomaš Frejka, Jean-Paul Sardon, Alain Confesson
 * "as the independence period was disrupted by soviet occupation (1940), German occupation (1941-1945) and another Soviet occupation (1945-1991)" Language for special purposes: perspectives for the new millennium, Volume 1 edited by Felix Mayer
 * "At the same time, underground movements fighting against German occupation emerged in all three Baltic states. These partisan groups were later to form the core of the guerrilla movements which fought against the Soviet occupation forces in the postwar years" p33 ‪The Baltic states after independence‬ By Ole Nørgaard
 * "Many aspects of daily life in Latvia still show the effects of the Soviet occupation from 1944 through 1991" p1084 World and Its Peoples Volume 8 of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
 * "Soviet occupation included the control of the socio-economic system, the implementation of Soviet institutions and the deportation of Estonians, set against the fostering of Russian-speaking immigration to the Republic. As a result, significant demographic changes took place in the region between 1939 and 1989. During the occupation period, the percentage of ethnic Estonians in the total population resident in Estonia dropped from 88% to 61%" Conflict and security in the former Soviet Union: the role of the OSCE By Maria Raquel Freire
 * "Mr. Speaker, in 1991, after more than 50 years of Soviet occupation, the nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, acting peacefully, but with great courage, regained their freedom." Congressional Record, V. 144, Pt. 17, October 7, 1998 to October 9, 1998
 * "In almost 50 years of Soviet occupation, all three countries were subjected to the full force of ideologic, political and economic policies as republics within the Soviet Union" Latvia By Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Centre for Co-operation with Non-members
 * "In 1991 after 50 years of Soviet occupation, Latvia regained its independence." p81 Eastern European theater after the iron curtain, Kalina Stefanova, Ann Waugh
 * "Latvia remained under Soviet occupation for forty years. Its independent statehood, however, was never legally extinguished. … the Latvian Supreme Council declared the 1940 annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union illegal. … Under the Latvian-Russian agreements on army withdrawal, the last Russian troops left Latvia on August 31, 1994, thus formally bringing Soviet military occupation to an end." p146 Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization: yearbook, Mary Kate Simmons, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
 * "Lithuania came under Soviet occupation in 1940 after being autonomous since 1918 . It remained under oppressive occupation for more than 50 years. Soviet occupation was interrupted for several years (1941-1944), replaced by a different oppressive, occupying force, the Nazis" Advocating for children and families in an emerging democracy edited by Judy W. Kugelmass, Dennis J. Ritchie
 * "As the 50 years of occupation changed from overt repression to political, cultural and ideological control and the desire by the Soviet Union to create an atomised homo sovieticus, denying national or other cultural identity," Language Planning and Policy in Europe: The Baltic States, Ireland and Italy edited by Robert B. Kaplan, Richard B. Baldauf, Jr.
 * "the USSR entered Latvia on 17 June 1940 and occupied the country for more than 50 years" Constitutional law of 10 EU member states: the 2004 enlargement, C. A. J. M. Kortmann, J. W. A. Fleuren, Wim Voermans,
 * "One of the major reasons is that in 50 years of Soviet occupation, the state of Latvia and constitutionalism could exist only in the imagination of the people." Encyclopedia of World Constitutions By Gerhard Robbers
 * "Secondly, the chapter lays out the attempt of the newly restored states to create a foreign policy 'from scratch', following fifty years of occupation. Why did the Baltic States seek to integrate into the Western political and security ..." Continuity and change in the Baltic Sea Region: comparing foreign policies By David J. Galbreath, Ainius Lašas, Jeremy W. Lamoreaux
 * "Fifty years of occupation have caused heavy ecological damage, both through military presence and activities as well ..." Remembering the Future: The Challenge of the Churches in Europe Robert C. Lodwick
 * "In the meantime, the Baltics' natural resources were pushed to their limits. Lithuanians had always been proud of how well they tended their land, how much they made it produce. But under Soviet occupation, Baltic farmers used so much fertiliser that the land started falling apart" Baltic Pride, Russian Tears Page 22 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Vol. 50, No. 5

Of course let us not forget Mälksoo, Marek and Ziemele who give detail treatment on the topic. --Nug (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference between me and you is that whereas you are playing the google games (as you conceded by yourself), I am trying to establish what the sources say, and use more specialised search engine, google scholar (which filters out most garbage). Another flaw of your search is that you chose search phrases that favour the result you want to achieve: "act of occupation" and "period of annexation" are not common phrases in English (just try to do a gscholar search, and you will see it by yourself. Therefore, you are right, you really play google games. Try to stop it, and then we can start to speak seriously.
 * Regarding the sources, could you please exclude Baltic sources? If the view you advocate are internationally recognised mainstream viewpoint, it would be easy to find non-Baltic sources saying the same. Regarding other sources, I don't see what purpose they say: since I do not propose to exclude the word "occupation" from Baltic related articles, the thesis that some sources describe those events as occupation does not need in additional support. What does need in confirmation is your thesis that the term "occupation" is a sole mainstream term used to describe those events. Obviously, by providing tens of sources that use the term "occupation" you cannot achieve this goal...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS With regard to Mälksoo, as far as I understand, his major conclusion is that, to resolve a state continuity controversy the annexation of the Baltic states can be seen as some specific form of occupation, and, therefore, it is correct to speak about state continuity of the Baltic States. Note, he never says that there was a specific military occupational regime in the Baltic states in 50s-80s, or something of that kind. Therefore, he is a good source to support my proposal: to maintain the parity between usage of the terms "occupation" and "annexation" in all Baltic related articles. However, I have some deja vu feeling: we already have had such conversation in the past. In connection to that, I suggest mediation to resolve this dispute. Do you agree?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Regarding the sources, could you please exclude Baltic sources?" I'm shocked Paul that you would make such a request. Should we also exclude "Jew" sources when discussing the Holocaust? I think not Paul. In any case most of the sources I cited are "non-baltic". I doubt mediation will work, it is my observation that if a discussion doesn't go your way you will simply continue in other forums or other talk pages. The fact that you do not see that your google searches are flawed because your premise that the terms "occupation" and "annexation" are used in a mutually exclusive way in the text is a proposition fallacy, that you persist in misrepresenting Mälksoo (odd that you rely upon this yet request we exclude Baltic sources) when it has been pointed out to you numerous times that your claim is back to front, Mälksoo states it was an occupation that gained the characteristics of an annexation, not the other way around (you still haven't explained how Estonia in the 1980s had more occupation characteristics than in 1940), your continued denial that the Baltic states were militarily occupied in 1940 despite eminent military historians such as David Glantz, Geoffrey Roberts and others stating they were, your misleading argument "most world states de facto recognised annexation of the Baltic states" when in fact sources state "they merely recognised that the Soviet Union exercised control of the three States de facto" and your refusal to cite any source that explicitly back your contentions underlines this. --Nug (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be not modest to equate the Balts with Jews, so I suggest you not to use such analogy. My request was dictated by the fact that many sources (one of them is van Elsuwege, Leiden Journal of International Law, 16 (2003), pp. 377–388) speak about Baltic and Russian viewpoints, and reaction of third states on that, although he makes a reservation that many Western sources support some Baltic claims. Moreover, he describes an evolution of Western views, because most Western powers initially refused to recognise state continuity of the Baltic states (which implies that that view was not predominant when the Baltic states were the part of the USSR). In other words, this source does not equate the Baltic and Western views. Yes, the idea that the Baltic states were occupied by the USSR is the sole mainstream viewpoint in the Baltic states, and that should be explained in this and other Baltic related articles. The opposite viewpoint is the official Russian position. With regard to Western authors, they partially support the Baltic views, partially speak about "annexation", and noone supports the (official) Russian views. That is how I can summarise the sources I read on this subject, and I do not think my summary is biased. In contrast, you attempt to claim that the mainstream Baltic viewpoint is universally recognised (and was universally recognised in 40s-80s) by the Western world. This claim is obviously wrong (at least you failed to demonstrate that you were right), and that is why I insist that, as soon as we speak about international viewpoint, the stress should be made on non-Baltic non-nationalist sources (by writing "non-nationalist" I mean that non-nationalist Balts are more trustworthy, similar to non-nationalist Russians, for example, your lovely Khudoley, whose writings, in contrast to writings of Russian nationalists, at least deserve to be discussed seriously).
 * Regarding the rest of my previous post, can you tell me if you understood your errors with usage of google search? Do we need to return to that again?
 * And, last but not least, since our discussion seems to have made one more circle, it is highly desirable that some third party moderated it to save both your and my time. I ask you for third (or even fourth time): do you agree on moderation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, I find it ironic that your should cite van Elsuwege's paper from the Leiden Journal of International Law because the question he discusses, the continuity of the Baltic states and whether restitutio ad integrum can be applied on the resumption of independence, is framed in the following terms in the introduction: "Hence, the question was whether the Baltic states, which had been subject to foreign occupation for a period of fifty years, fell into this category." In other words van Elsuwege is enquiring if 50 years of occupation impacted the Baltic thesis of legal continuity. How did you miss that? --Nug (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not clear from the context if van Elsuwege expresses his own view or he cites Marek. In his article, he makes several conflicting statements, probably, to describe the whole opinia spectrum. In addition, as he correctly noted, if we speak about pure occupation, then, e.g. Lithuania has to return to its pre-war borders. It is interesting that Lithuania does not make so big stress on "occupation" rhetoric, because that would mean cession of the Vilno region, along with the present-days capital, Vilnius. In contrast, Estonia and Latvia, who acquired no additional territory after dissolution of the USSR, and who have large Russian population, use the idea of occupation to preserve indigenous population from assimilation. Therefore, we have a re-incarnation of realpolitik here, which uses a legal fiction of state continuity as a tool.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "50 years of occupation" is clearly van Elsuwege's view, because Marek's monograph was published in 1968 which would have made it 28 years. What van Elsuwege is discussing here is that in light of 50 years of occupation can these states be considered extinct or not and what chance of restitutio ad integrum remains, he cites Marek who states that this point of extinction is only reached "except in the very last resort, when the normative pressure of facts has reached its summit and all reasonable chance of a restitutio ad integrum has disappeared for as long a period of time as can reasonably be assessed". What van Elsuwege concludes is that after fifty years of occupation continuity exists, but a full and unrestricted restitutio ad integrum was no longer possible, due to various humanitarian (international pressure against expelling long term settlers) and self-interest (Vilnius region) reasons. In other words after being in a coma for 50 years the patient awakes and continues to live but can never fully restore the situation that previously existed 50 years ago. --Nug (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Constructive ideas
I originally opened the discussion because I wanted to reach conclusions not about legal issues (we are not paid lawyers) but on how we should edit subjects close to this issue. I cannot get involved in this argument that has dominated the page these past days because I am unqualified. That section was also getting needlessly long. All I can say is one thing, it is time we all worked on presentation matters. It is patently obvious that we can neither talk of the Baltic countries being occupied in the same way Iraq occupied Kuwait 1990/91 and neither can we talk of the lands forming an integral Soviet realm the same way Bavaria is part of Germany and not occupied. As when we edit with Kosovo, all subjects on 1940-91 Baltic lands must be handled with caution. I am trying to be neutral here and it is the best way to be because this is a hot debate and consensus will never be achieved so long as the dispute is subject to pro- and anti-Soviet subscribers' views. The arguments are so bitterly opposed. Can I ask that we now address the editing? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the occupations of Kuwait and the Baltic states, as Mälksoo highlights on page 111 of his book Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states by the USSR:
 * "Joe Verhoeven points out that there is an important difference between the case of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1990 and that of the Baltic States (1940- 1991), namely the time factor. Kuwait was occupied for six months, the Baltic states for fifty years."
 * It is always good to get fresh set of eyes on the topic, and you concerns may have been buried in the long discussion above, could you recap what your see is(are) the editing issue(s) that needs to be addressed? --Nug (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as we came back to the Mälksoo's opinion, I again have to reproduce the summary of his views made by him himself. Here it is:
 * "''"I have been told that a debate has unfolded in wikipedia over whether an article should be entitled "Occupation of the Baltic States" or "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". In my opinion, the debate demonstrates the continued relevance and importance of the whole topic. However, I do not think that choosing any of the two titles would result in the 'victory' of any of the political fractions.
 * ''In fact, I would agree with those who claim that it is more precise to re-entitle the article as "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". The Baltic States were occupied in June 1940 and annexed (incorporated) by the USSR in August 1940. Thus, both occupation and annexation DID happen. The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities. For example, when 1980 Moscow olympic games took place, the olympic regatta took place in Tallinn. This cannot be a typical occupation situation.
 * ''However, it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant Western opinion and post-1991 restored Baltic States themselves, the Soviet annexation remained illegal. In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate. 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.
 * ''Many thanks for your interest and with greetings to all wikipedia editors,
 * ''Lauri Mälksoo,
 * ''Professor of International Law,
 * ''University of Tartu"
 * The letter is devoted to the discussion about the title of the summary article Occupation of the Baltic states, and, as you can see, the difference between standard occupations and the situation with, as Mälksoo sees it, was not just in the duration.
 * Evlekis' notion that there was a little analogy between Bavaria as a part of Germany, and Estonia as a part of the USSR is correct. Of course, it would be incorrect to equate the Baltic states with Bavaria, which was an integral part of the German Empire since Bismark's times. In my opinion (and not only in my), analogy with Austria would be more close. Austria was absorbed by Germany illegally and forcefully, although peacefully, and the special term is used to describe that event (Anschluss) to emphasise the fact that was not merely an occupation. In the Baltic case, which was equally unique, no special term is used to describe it, and different authors use "occupation", "annexation", "absorption", "incorporation", etc. Obviously, that confusion is caused by complexity and uniqueness of the Baltic states, and, therefore, all those terms should be used both in titles and in the Baltic related articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no complexity of terminology. The only word which matters from the viewpoint of sovereignty is "occupied." All those other words are various means of describing the actions of the USSR against the sovereignty of the Baltic states but do not nullify or modify occupation. That the Baltic states could not be completely restored as they were prior to occupation is to be expected; that does not make occupation not an occupation. Your other terms can all be mentioned, but only one, occupied, is the the word which appropriately describes the action of the USSR against the sovereign rights of the Baltic states. Once again, there is no exclusive OR regarding the words you mention and "occupation." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More succinctly, your postulation of XOR is your personal synthesis. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did you find XOR in my recent post? I would say the opposite, your own position should be characterised as a kind of biased XOR: "if the word "occupation" is present in some source, that is sufficient to claim that the term "occupation" is the only acceptable term to describe the events in the Baltic states; if the word "occupation" is absent from some source, and another term is used, that is sufficient to ignore such source, and to use the word "occupation" in any event". That is how your position can be explained, and I do not understand how can you blame me in any XOR after that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Paul, of course I find XOR in your post and, indeed, your statement of position all along. You call my position (and that of other editors with whom you disagree) regarding occupation for the duration a minority view and denounce me (and others with whom you disagree) as recalcitrant POV warriors who refuse to support objective content. Your XOR postulation is as follows:
 * A minority of scholars use the term (this is key to your POV position, that it's merely another word) "occupation" for the period of the Soviet presence in the Baltic states
 * versus a majority use other terms...
 * there is term "A"
 * or there is term "B"
 * or there is term "C"
 * or there is term "D"
 * or there is term "E"
 * or there is term ...
 * ... and all "terms", according to you, must be represented in an NPOV fashion, specifically, the minority "occupation" is less used than the aggregate of all the other "terms" used to refer to the Soviet presence during the time period in question, that is, the duration.
 * This complexity you weave of many terms, etc., etc. is simply obfuscation. "Occupation" is the only word which describes the inimical action of the USSR against the sovereignty of the Baltic states. Note, "action", not "term" for Soviet presence, Soviet control,...
 * All the rest (A, B, C, D, E,...) are terms which have been used to refer to the Soviet presence in some fashion but which make no statement regarding occupation and are therefore completely superfluous to the topic at hand.
 * My position is that in conjunction with occupation, you can use whatever else terms or phrases which might be out there which describe aspects (e.g., "incorporated as a constituent republic according to Soviet law"), but that occupation remains an inviolable constant for the duration of the Soviet presence. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Paul's argument is summed up in this quote " In contrast, "annexation" is just one of alternative terms used in literature. Other terms are "absorption" (74 hits), "incorporation" 393 hits (or 136 using redundantly stringent keywords choice). Therefore, majority of sources do not use "occupation"." He claims these terms are alternative and "occupation" is in the minority, when in fact if you analyse his google searches and do the math the opposite is the case, the different terms are used together in the sources to describe different aspects, "annexation", "absorption" and "incorporation" usually referring to the event in 1940 and "occupation" usually referring to the period from 1940 to 1991. --Nug (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And I would add regarding Paul's passage from Malksoo's Email ("... In this sense, illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo-debate. The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR. ...") "Pseudo-debate" means there is NO debate of occupation versus annexation or occupation becoming annexation precisely because the illegal annexation did not confer any rights to the USSR regarding the sovereign Baltic states, meaning, the occupation was an occupation for the duration. So the very passage Paul maintains supports his position actualy supports my position, and that of other editors, that the Baltic states were occupied for the duration and that any other events or actions did not change the occupation into something else. Malksoo's concern with the current title is that it implies there was some change in the nature of the Soviet presence going from occupation to annexation, that "from" and "to" also being implied, when in fact there is no "from" and "to". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @both of you. Whereas the gscholar results suggest that majority of hits do not contain the word "occupation", I never claimed that the description of the Baltic events using the word "occupation" is a minority view. That is your own interpretation of my words, and I am not responsible for that. Please, re-read my posts again.
 * Re Mälksoo, you see just what you want to see. As you probably noticed, his e-mail ends with his recommendation to change the title from "occupation" to "occupation and annexation", because, as he correctly notes, that more correctly reflects the real state of things. However, during the discussion of the change of the title you both preferred to ignore this recommendation. Do you think you have a moral right to refer to Mälksoo in that situation?
 * What Mälksoo writes is: "in terms of legal continuity the Baltic states should be considered as occupied", and I have absolutely no intention to question this conclusion: currently, most states recognised the Baltic states as successors of pre-war Baltic states. However, from the point of view of political realities the regime in the Baltic states was not an ordinary occupation, and numerous evidences had been presented to demonstrate this fact (some of them could be found in the Mälksoo e-mail). Therefore, the word "occupation" is more pertinent to the State continuity of the Baltic states article, whereas in majority of other articles on this subject a parity between "occupation" and "annexation" should be preserved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, the continuity article should never have been created in the first place, there is nothing that can't be covered here. "Occupation" is pertinent here in that the Baltic peoples could not rightfully exercise their sovereign rights for the duration of the Soviet presence. It is not "more" pertinent somewhere else.
 * And "By contrast, the opposite party (Nug, Vecrumba and some others) insist that, since some reliable sources confirm that the Baltic states were occupied, the event should be described as "occupation", and only "occupation"." certainly looks and feels like and is therefore labeling ours a simplistic POV-pushing minority view supported only by some scholars using the term "ocupation" and us then going further to apply that term "exclusivity"--a gross misrepresentation which I've corrected above.
 * Your advocacy for "parity" (equal weight) begets exactly the misrepresentation and misinterpretation Malksoo is most concerned with. Frankly, rather damning for your POV. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I misinterpreted your position, please explain what my misinterpretation consisted in.
 * Regarding Mälksoo, what concretely is wrong with my words? Didn't Mälksoo recommend to rename Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states? Didn't he write about the difference between the legal aspects of state continuity and the political reality of the Soviet rule?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mälksoo's email has been discussed three times already and can be found in the archives here, here and here. You evidently remembered "your lovely Khudoley", so I am surprised that you evidently forgot those previous discussions. As for your question about difference between the legal aspects of state continuity and the political reality of the Soviet rule, well I am sure that the political reality of the Republic of Kuwait made no difference to the international view that Kuwait was occupied, and recall "Joe Verhoeven points out that there is an important difference between the case of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1990 and that of the Baltic States (1940- 1991), namely the time factor. Kuwait was occupied for six months, the Baltic states for fifty years." --Nug (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't forget anything. Moreover, I am still unable to understand why, after prolonged discussions of this Mälksoo's e-mail the main  Mälksoo recommendation (to include the word "annexation") appeared to be rejected. In addition, the  Mälksoo though about the difference between the legal aspects of annexation and the political realities during the Soviet rule appeared to be totally ignored by you.
 * The quote about Kuwait is a good illustration to your ability to selectively use sources: never in his quote did Mälksoo  state that duration was the only difference. The idea that the difference was only in duration is your own creature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It ("annexation" in the title) appears to be rejected because you are perverting Malksoo's intended precision to create an inaccurate and wholly unsupported POV position and associated narrative, that there is a minority of reputable scholarship which contends that the Baltic states were, above all else with regard to belligerent actions by the USSR, occupied by the Soviet Union. And even if they were "occupied", that's more an issue of legalese to be discussed elsewhere (state continuity). The innocent victims of multiple mass deportations and summary executions would disagree with you that "annexation" changed any aspect of occupation during which the USSR spent half a century inflicting crimes against humanity upon the citizenry of the Baltic states.
 * You appear incapable of accepting (the vast) majority scholarship that the USSR occupied the Baltics in 1940, re-occupied them in 1944 (except the Courland Pocket, re-occupied at the end of the war), and continued to occupy them until its demise. There is not one whit of reputable scholarship that contends otherwise. There are only your word searches and repetitive insistence that "occupation" is a "term" in the "minority," therefore one cannot paint "occupation" as a majority scholarly opinion.
 * I have yet to come across a more prodigious prestidigitation of fundamentally flawed POV conjured (aka WP:SYNTHESIS) from an assemblage of individually precise tidbits as yours regarding "occupation."
 * I do admire your tenacity and wonder at the effort you put into marginalizing (my perception) the act of Soviet occupation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which position is "inaccurate"? That the political realities of the Soviet rule do not allow us to speak about occupation sensu stricto?
 * The reference to "innocent victims" is totally irrelevant: overwhelming majority of Russian, Ukrainian, etc victims of Stalinism were also innocent, does it mean the USSR was "occupied"? In actuality the amount of victim is not an indication of occupation: sometimes, pure military occupation lead even to cessation of massacres perpetrated by domestic authorities. Thus, Communist Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea lead to cessation of Khmer Rouge genocide. Does it mean Vietnam did not occupy Cambodia, and KR did?
 * Re "vast majority scholarship", see gscholar results.
 * Re prestidigitation, I provide sources and facts, and you respond with emotional and baseless contentions. Physician, heal thyself...
 * Re marginalizing, you are right, that is just your perception. However, this page is not a forum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, the only published source you provided was van Elsuwege, and when I pointed out that he also agreed that the Baltic states were occupied for fifty years you abandon the thread, then start discussing Mälksoo's email a fourth time, then wheel out the "occupation sensu stricto" argument yet again. There seems to be a pattern developing here. You come up with some old argument, we comprehensively refute it, you go silent on that argument and then offer another and so on, three months later repeat. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Nug (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Paul, I have to laugh. On the one hand, you've lobbied in the past that it's not occupation because Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians enjoyed all the rights, obligations and privileges of Soviet citizenship. And here, you now lobby that since Stalin/Stalinism killed plenty of other legitimate Soviet citizens, there is no "occupation" to complain about, the Baltic states were treated no worse than others as no part of the USSR was immune to mass deportation, mass killing, etc.? You dismiss crimes against humanity against the forcibly occupied because the same crimes are visited as those upon the occupying regime's own citizens? What a load of utterly offensive crap. You really are proving—beyond any doubt—your complete lack of integrity regarding the matter of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and your utter lack of fitness to engage on this topic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)