User:Vecrumba/Classification As Occupation

Reference section, either to have citations added or to use in other article(s) dealing with official Soviet historiography

Classification of the Soviet presence as an occupation
The Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany, then re-occupied by the Soviet Union.

While this article is written from the perspective of Latvia, for reference purposes its validity extends to all three Baltic republics --- Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as:


 * all were forced into virtually identical "mutual assistance pacts" at the same time;
 * all were invaded and occupied under the same false pretenses and fabricated charges as part of the same campaign, Lithuania being the first; and
 * the governments of all three states took specific steps to insure their de jure continuity regardless of territorial events.

War (formally declared or de facto) is not a necessary component of occupation

The earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that "a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." Importantly, this definition was adopted in the context of a time when war itself was still considered a legal means for settling disputes between nations.

Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states: “The Convention [...] shall apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.” This definition and subsequent legal interpretation focus on de facto control of a territory: "... the occupying power must be in a position to substitute its own authority for that of the occupied authorities, which must have been rendered incapable of functioning publicly".

The invaded authorities (Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian) immediately lost control to Soviet authority. As an example, consider the takeover of all communication facilities (government-run phone and telegraph, radio, as well as others). A large portion of the Latvian government was deported to Gulag camps in or near Siberia. This is wholly sufficient legal basis to categorize the Soviet presence an "occupation," whether or not the Soviet army invaded "legally" under the terms of the pacts of mutual assistance and whether or not the Soviet authorities in charge were "civilian" or "military".

Pacts of mutual assistance

Pravda (November 26, 1939), described the Finnish Prime Minister Aimo Cajander as a "buffoon" for not agreeing to a pact of mutual assistance, characterizing the pacts as: "... Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have concluded with the Soviet government treaties securing them independence, peace and calm work." Four days later, on November 30, the Soviet Union invaded Finland, proving Stalin's direct threats, made by him personally under which the Baltic States signed those pacts were not made idly: as noted above, prior to the signing, Stalin (in Moscow) had told Latvian Prime Minister Vilhelms Munters that as far as he was concerned, he could "invade tomorrow."

This initial stationing of troops on Latvian soil was not benign. As noted, less than a week after the signing of the mutual assistance pacts, General Ivan Serov, Deputy People's Commissar of Public Security of the Soviet Union, had already on October 11, 1939 issued and signed Order № 001223, "on the Procedure for carrying out the deportation of Anti-Soviet elements from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia." Nevertheless this initial stationing of Soviet troops was legal under applicable international law, and was done under terms where the Soviet Union specifically guaranteed that the stationing must in no way impinge on the sovereignty of Latvia. Regardless, the "legality" of this initial stationing (under duress) does not automatically impart "legality" to subsequent Soviet actions using the pacts as their basis.

Most importantly, the stationing of Soviet troops on Latvian soil under the mutual assistance pacts, the subsequent Soviet invasion, and the expulsion of the Nazis from Latvian soil by Soviet forces are all discrete events widely separated in time, not to be confused or somehow regarded as continuous with each other.

Soviet invasion "under the terms" of the mutual assistance pacts

The mutual assistance pacts are most often cited as the basis for the legality of the Soviet presence. The Soviet official position was that they were subsequently forced to enter under the terms of the mutual assistance pact(s) in order to preserve their security. Lack of armed resistance is further cited as proof this was not an invasion. However, lack of armed resistance was only an attempt by the government of Latvia to buy time. The Baltics were strictly neutral in the war and were desperate to avoid its devastation. They would have been crushed by a Soviet onslaught.

The Soviet Union issued similar ultimatums to all three Baltic States, and then used the resulting bases for its subsequent invasion. The ultimatum of June 16, 1940 to Latvia charged Latvia with the following breaches of the terms of their "mutual assistance" pact:


 * Latvia's continued Military Alliance with Estonia, signed on November 1, 1923, a defensive alliance registered with the League of Nations, and to which the Soviet Union had not previously objected, nor mentioned in the "mutual assistance pacts";
 * Estonia's and Latvia's extension of that alliance to Lithuania, thus implicating all three Baltic states in an anti-Soviet plot &mdash; this charge was a total fabrication;
 * Holding "secret conferences" in December, 1939 and March, 1940, during which the tri-party alliance "plotted against the Soviet Union" &mdash; these were, in fact, regularly scheduled conferences of the Baltic ministers in accordance with the Treaty of Collaboration of the Baltic States, signed in 1934 and registered with the League of Nations, not secret and not objected to by the Soviet Union prior to this time;
 * The enhancement of military relations between the Baltic states "in secret from the Soviets" &mdash; this charge was another total fabrication, considering that tens of thousands of Soviet troops were already stationed in all three Baltic states; and lastly,
 * The creation of a military Baltic Entente, the Revue Baltique &mdash; this charge was not only a fabrication but also absurd. While there existed an organisation of this name, it was a tri-lingual press organization of the Societies of Friendship of the Baltic Peoples and had no military function or capability.

There were additional Soviet provocations in the Baltics (alleged kidnapping of border guards, et al.) to set the stage. In the case of Latvia, after the first ultimatum was delivered to Lithuania, but before an ultimatum was delivered to Latvia, the Soviet Union attacked three Latvian border posts in the east of Latvia, killing three border guards and two civilians, as well as taking 10 border guards and 27 civilians as hostages to the Soviet Union.

The Soviet invasion of the Baltics was a completely unprovoked military action based on lies and in completion of a pre-meditated plan which, already in 1939, had included the printing of maps labeled "Latvian S.S.R." (Латвийская ССР).

Finally, in sending Andrei Vishinsky as an official representative of the Soviet Union to take control of power and form a new government in Latvia subsequent to the invasion, the Soviet Union violated the terms of the mutual assistance pact which explicitly stated the pact must have no effect on Latvia's sovereignty.

"Petitions to join" the Soviet Union

After the invasion of the Baltics, during which period they were purportedly still "sovereign," Molotov told the Lithuanian foreign minister, Vincas Kreve-Misckevicius, to prepare for the Soviet system. Puppet governments were "elected" two weeks later in all three republics.

The notion that the Baltics freely, willingly, and legally joined the Soviet Union is the most persistent fabrication of Soviet propaganda. This is a position that Russian Federation has continued to espouse decades after the fall of Soviet Union, for example, in the passage of a resolution by the Russian Duma in November, 1999 to "remind deputies of the Latvian Saima that Latvia's being a part of the Soviet Union was grounded by fact and by law from the international juridical point of view ...".

Latvia's "petition", as well as those of the other Baltic states, to join the Soviet Union were illegal and void, as follows:


 * First, the governments "elected" were fraudulent. Beyond holding them in unconstitutional manner, out of schedule and on a short notice, only Soviet "approved" candidates were allowed on the ballot and the election results were announced in Moscow hours before the polls closed. Soviet documents verify that the results were completely fabricated. The "election" was an outright fraud executed by the Soviet Union. Any actions subsequently taken by the puppet governments were equally fraudulent.


 * Second, the subsequent "petition to join the Soviet Union" was illegal regardless of the circumstances of the fraudulent election. In the case of Latvia, the Latvian constitution required any change to its borders or territorial sovereignty to be ratified by a two-thirds majority plebiscite of all eligible voters. Paradoxically, Soviet (now Russian) insistence that the joining of the Baltics to the Soviet Union was undertaken at the initiative of the parliaments of the respective sovereign nations (thus making it "technically" legal) confirms that these joinings were completely illegal as, in the case of Latvia, the joining was effected in a manner which fundamentally violated the terms of its constitution. (It is also noteworthy that prior to the parliamentary "election," all the Soviet-installed candidates took pains to disavow the possibility of any action to incorporate Latvia into the Soviet Union.)

The sovereign Baltic States did not, therefore, join the Soviet Union; furthermore, their rightful governments continued to exist de jure.

Continued existence of the Baltic states after WWII

The argument has also been advanced that as the Baltic states no longer existed de facto after World War II, that they could no longer have been occupied. This argument fails in two regards:


 * First is the falsehood based on the notion that the Baltic states "voluntarily" joined the Soviet Union and in doing so, ceased to be sovereign entities.


 *  This is a critical item regarding current Baltic-Russian relations : The logical extension of this argument states that the Baltic states are not "continuances" of the respective territorial and governmental entities which were sovereign prior to WWII, which is the official position of the Russian Federation's government.


 * As the joining was both fraudulent and illegal, based on both outright election fraud and on constitution violation, there is no legal basis to any termination of sovereignty.


 * Second, the Baltic governments all took individual action to ensure continuity of the exercise of their sovereignty regardless of territorial situations. Power of state was vested in these individuals/organs by the respective sovereign governments and was exercised by them until transfer of power of state by them back to the re-established sovereign governments. In the case of Latvia, power of state was formally vested in Kārlis Zariņš, head of the Latvian legation to Great Britain, with Alfreds Bīlmanis, his counterpart in the United States, as his substitute should he fail to be able to execute his duties. After the death of Kārlis Zariņš in 1963, Latvia's diplomatic and consular services were overseen by the chargés d'affaires in the United States until the reestablishment of independence in 1991.

The Baltic states are continuous to their initial independence, remaining in existence de jure in exile during the Soviet presence. This is the official position of all three governments, which can point to officially documented and de jure transfers of power which completely validate their position in this regard. This position is widely recognised internationally, with the notable exception of Russian Federation.

During the first occupation alone, the Soviet Union killed and deported about 130,000 Baltic citizens and had plans to deport about 2,000,000 more. The welcoming of Soviet troops after that experience is a manufacture of Soviet propaganda, as is the story that the Freedom Monument in Riga was built to thank Stalin their liberator, its three stars alleged to be the three Baltic states--a British tourism brochure published a decade after Baltic independence repeated this fiction as fact, demonstrating the influence Soviet propaganda continues to exercise in the post-Soviet era.

Gross violations of international law

It is a severe breach of the Geneva Convention to deport citizens from the occupied territory to the territory of the occupier. As well, it is a severe breach to import citizens of the occupier into occupied territory:


 * The Soviet Union already deported Latvian citizens to its territory at the time when it was taking great pains to insist the Baltics were still "sovereign", not counting the many more deportations which occurred after Latvia was sovietized, all in violation of international law.


 * The subsequent Soviet campaign of Russification after re-occupation equally violated international law.

Summary


 * Only the initial stationing of Soviet troops in Latvia under the terms of the mututal assistance pact can be considered "legal," and that in the technical sense only, as the agreement was signed under duress after Stalin's direct and personally stated threat of invasion.
 * Latvia was illegally invaded by the Soviet Union, regardless of the "legality" of the initial stationing of Soviet troops on Latvian soil under the terms of the mutual assistance pact;
 * Latvia neither voluntarily nor legally joined the Soviet Union.
 * The sovereign powers of state of Latvia continued to exist de jure and to be exercised in exile during the entire Soviet tenure in the Latvian territory.
 * Latvia is de jure continuous with its pre-World War II predecessor.
 * The Soviet presence in Latvia is therefore classified an occupation for its entire tenure.

Various motives have been ascribed to Russia as to its denial of Soviet occupation of the Baltics, from the genuine belief the Soviets were liberators to Russia's concerns it could be held accountable for Soviet-related reparations under international law. This article does not offer to speculate in that regard.

Non-recognition of the Soviet occupation Most of the world never recognized Soviet annexation and continuing occupation of the Baltic states, thus adopting the policy of non-recognition. Most significantly, the United States of America expressed applicability of the Stimson Doctrine to the occupation of Baltic states, ultimately leading to this doctrine becoming an established precedent of international law. A number of resolutions demanding an end to Soviet occupation of Baltic states was passed by different institutions. .

On January 13, 1983, the European Parliament adopted this resolution regarding the Baltic States:

Condemning the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral states by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 pursuant to the Molotov / Ribbentrop Pact, and continues, Whereas the Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states has still not been formally recognised by most European states and the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of Baltic states, [...] Calls on the Conference of Foreign Minister meeting in political cooperation to attempt to form a common favourable approach to the declaration addressed to the United Nations in 1979, Suggests that they submit the issue of the Baltic states to the Decolonisation Subcommittee on the U.N., Considers that the plight of the peoples of these states be the subject of review during the conferences to monitor implementation of the Helsinki Final Act ...

The non-recognition of occupation has also been manifested in the recognition of continuity of the Latvian Republic as demonstrated by the resumption of treaties Latvia entered into prior to Soviet occupation. Example, recommendation on new Treaty of Extradition cites current treaties in effect from prior to World War II:

Message to the Senate of the United States

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Latvia, signed on December 7, 2005, at Riga. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the treaty.

The new extradition treaty with Latvia would replace the outdated extradition treaty between the United States and Latvia, signed on October 16, 1923, at Riga, and the Supplementary Extradition Treaty, signed on October 10, 1934, at Washington. The treaty also fulfills the requirement for a bilateral instrument between the United States and each European Union (EU) Member State in order to implement the Extradition Agreement between the United States and the EU. Two other comprehensive new extradition treaties with EU Member States Estonia and Malta likewise also serve as the requisite bilateral instruments pursuant to the U.S.-EU Agreement, and therefore also are being submitted separately and individually.

The treaty follows generally the form and content of other extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. It would replace an outmoded list of extraditable offenses with a modern "dual criminality" approach, which would enable extradition for such offenses as money laundering and other newer offenses not appearing on the list. The treaty also contains a modernized "political offense" clause. It further provides that extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought; in the past, Latvia has declined to extradite its nationals to the United States. A national who has been convicted in the courts of the other Party may request to be allowed to serve the resulting sentence in his state of nationality. Finally, the new treaty incorporates a series of procedural improvements to streamline and speed the extradition process.

I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the treaty.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 29, 2006.