User:Nug/Views on Soviet occupation



The Russian government holds that certain military actions of the Soviet Union should not be classified as military occupations. For example, the official position of the Russian Federation is that the accession of the Baltic states to the USSR in 1940 did not contradict the provisions of international law that were in effect at the time and, as such, did not constitute an occupation.

Military background
In 23 August 1939, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed a non-aggression pact commonly known as Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, in whose secret protocols Stalin and Hitler divided Northern Europe and Eastern Europe into spheres of influence of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. In the following year, both regimes began conquering neighbours, starting with Poland, in accordance with the pact.

In 1940, Soviet Union entered Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania through using its military bases in these countries admitted by treaties with their respective governments signed earlier. In 1941, during Hitler's Eastern Front offensive, the Operation Barbarossa, Nazi Germany occupied the Baltic states in turn, organising them under the Reichskommissariat Ostland. By the end-1944, Nazi Germany's military success was waning and Soviet Red Army was on offensive liberating its territory from the Nazi occupation, including the territories of the recently annexed Baltic States. Latvian SSR, Lithuania and Estonia remained parts of the USSR as Soviet Republics until the 1991 collapse Soviet Union.



Legal background
Following the invasion of 1940, Stalin attempted to legitimise the annexation of Baltic states into Soviet Union in two steps: first, elections were held under the control of the Soviet  authorities; second, the elected governments — in fact, administrations approved in Moscow — would apply for entry into the Soviet Union, and then sign treaties to that effect. This legitimization was generally rejected by the Western powers. USA was the first to formalise the position that Soviet occupation of Baltic states was illegal under international law, leaning to the Stimson Doctrine from 1932. Other countries followed, and in this way, made the principles of the Stimson Doctrine established precedent of international law.

Historical Soviet view
Until 1989 the Soviet Union denied the existence of the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Some argue that this was done in part because the protocol is an evidence of its involuntary annexation of the Baltic states. .

During Perestroika, the reassessment era of Soviet history in USSR, in 1989 the USSR condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and itself that had led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the restoration of the Baltic republics' sovereignty in 1991.

After Putin came to power, some commentators believe a revision of history in Russia has started once again, raising fears among some historians that the Kremlin is "trying to rewrite history in a way that risks breeding ultranationalism and whitewashing the darkest chapters of Russia's past"

Russian Federation's view
Russian Federation, a successor state to Soviet Union (see History of post-Soviet Russia), refuses to recognize the fact of occupation.

The exact reasons for this are debated by analysts; the most commonly cited reasons include a concern that if Russian Federation would admit Soviet occupations, this might create a precedent allowing the formerly occupied countries to demand reparations for economic harm caused by Soviet Union. Some countries, for example the Czech Republic, have made demands for such compensation (the Czech parliament passed a bill under which the Czech Republic should pay compensation to victims of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia between 1968 and 1991). Such harm is not, as of 2007, fully understood; however, some claim that estimates run into hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of US dollars.

This viewpoint is mostly in connection with the Soviet occupation of Baltic states in 1940–1941 and again in 1944–1991, the United States Senate has passed a resolution urging the Russian Federation to admit the fact of occupation in order to facilitate improvement of goodwill between Russia and the former Eastern bloc.

The Russian state officials, maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate and that the Soviet Union liberated the countries from the Nazis. They state that Soviet troops entered the Baltic countries in 1940 following agreements and with the consent of the governments of the Baltic republics. Their position is that the USSR was not in a state of war and was not engaged in combat activities on the territories of the three Baltic states, therefore, the word "occupation" cannot be used.

Baltic view on Russia's position
The governments of the Baltic countries view it as occupation. Some Baltic historians contend that the Russian view is revisionist. According to Tunne Kelam, a former senior scholar of the Estonian Central Archives of History and currently a Member of the European Parliament, as of 2007, Russia is the only country in Europe to maintain this viewpoint.

Attempts to criminalize occupation denial
In Latvia and Estonia it was proposed to criminalise occupation denial as a form of hate crime. As of May 2007, the only legislature known to have considered such criminalisation was Saeima of Latvia, which rejected the bill in January 18 2007, by voting 22 against, 30 for and 32 MPs abstained. In Estonia, such a proposal was rejected by the Ministry of Justice as constitutionally questionable under a legal principle similar to the Vagueness doctrine, and never presented to Riigikogu for consideration.

Czech view on Russia's position
The official position of the Czech Republic is that they were occupied by the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact forces in 1968. This occupation ended in 1990, when Soviet forces were removed from Czechoslovakia.

International view on Russia's position
According to the European Court of Human Rights, the USA and the EU, the 1940 occupation of the Baltic States by the USSR was illegal. The countries remained occupied by the Soviet Union until restorations of independence in 1991; the 48 years of Soviet occupation and annexation were never recognised as legal by the Western states. The USA had applied the earlier-adopted Stimson Doctrine to the events, leading to its becoming an established precedent of International Law.

Quotations

 * "Saying that USSR had occupied the Baltic states is absurd and nonsense. One can not occupy something that already belongs to him."
 * Russian Federation's foreign minister Sergei Ivanov, May 7 2005, in an address to Red Army veterans.


 * "It is just another inadequate action of the President. What occupation?  This is absurd. [...] Communists will use all influence on the parliamentary majority to prevent opening of such museum."
 * Oleksandr Golub, of the Communist Party of Ukraine, March 2 2007, commenting on president Yushchenko's initiative on opening an occupation museum in Ukraine.


 * (having explained how with MRP, Germany had "given back" Estonian territory to the Soviet Union in 1939) "This means that if in 1939 the Baltic countries had joined the Soviet Union, then in 1945 the Soviet Union could not have occupied them, because they were already part of the Soviet Union."
 * Russian Federation's president Vladimir Putin, undated news conference in 2005


 * "There was no occupation. There were agreements at the time with the legitimately elected authorities in the Baltic countries."
 * Kremlin's European affairs chief Sergei Yastrzhembsky


 * "Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement of admission and condemnation of the illegal occupation and annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the consequence of which will be a significant increase in good will among the affected peoples and enhanced regional stability."
 * United States House of Representatives, July 25 2005: