Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupied territories of Baltic States

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept, but needs much work. - SimonP 14:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Delete this travesty "

Occupied territories of Baltic States
Under current title the article has incurable problems with POV. The claim that all territories which were part of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the first half of the 20th century, but are not part of those countries now, are to be considered occupied territories is highly controversial to say the least. Balcer 17:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well the territorial expansion did happen, and it is mentioned on the Soviet Empire page. So perhaps Soviet Empire should be expanded to include acquisitions during the same time frame? I'll vote to Merge there with no redirect, along with suitable editing for neutrality. (There are plenty of other Russian border states that lost territory, in addition to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. So those could be covered in more detail as well.) &mdash; RJH 17:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

But Estonia could not have lost territory to Russia because it was not a country that could lose any territory. Until Bolsheviks, it did not exist or existed merely as a geographical concept (no encyclopedia or any source define Estonia as a country until 1920s.  Pre WWI Encyclopedia Britannica has no entry on this non-country country). The question of territorial loss or gain or of occupation or annexation is of irrelevance if other, fully legitimate viewpoints are to be considered.

In essence - the Estonian ethnocratic state claims that it is miraculous reincarnation of the ethnofascist dictatorship named Estonia or Estonian Republic between its recognition by Bolsheviks and the grant of independence by Gorbachev in 1991. Now only from this totally preposterous standpoint can one claim that Estonia (or Latvia) was occuppied or any territory gained. Even if the USA supported that claim during the Cold War for obvious political reasons the claim, the claim is fairly preposterous.

The current Russian Federation official view is that Estonia is a brand new entity that emerged from the Soviet Union - hence its borders are the borders of Estonian Soviet Republic. The case closed.

The third point (the one I adhere to) that the overthrow of Russian Republic by the Bolsheviks in 1917 was illegal (and the Russia's Council of State issued its last proclamation to that regard) and all treaties concerned border changes therefrom are illegal since the parties who signed them had no authority to do so. Hence Estonia or Latvia are illegitmate statelets, illegal today as they were 1920s. Those statelets could not have lost any territory since there was none to lose. Territory of Estonia is two Russian provinces or governments (Estland, Estlandia or Esthonia - http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Esthonia and the northern portion of Livlandia or Livonia - http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Livonia). The only treaty that can possibly govern Russia's relations with those provinces is that of the Treaty of Nystad in 1721. Occupation of Estonia and Latvia by the USSR is hence an annexation of own territory by less than legitimate entity. Unfortunately this viewpoint is not shared by the current Russian administration because they can't - they would have to carry out restitution inside Russia and de-privatize a humongous number of assets if they recognized the fact that 1991 was not a fresh beginning as they claim.


 * Strong keep seems to be like a vfd to prove a point maybe. I myself suggested in the discution that the rename might be needed. However, the subject itself is encyclopedic, there are really territories which were part of Baltic States during interwar, but were detached from their Soviet Socialist Republics when they got occupied by Russia, and up till now these territories causes certain troubles, e.g. certain people protests against recognising them as part of Russia; this owas the main reason why the Latvian-Russian border treaty wasn't ratified recently, as Vladimir Putin himself said (he said that treaty would be ratified in case Latvians would drop "claims which does not correspond to European spirit"; Latvians required to put into the document that the document is based on the interwar boundary treaty, adn the interwar boundary treaty between Russia and Latvia included Abrene region as part of Latvia. In Estonia same things exists too with Petseri region and the East Coast of Narva. In Estonia even the maps are frequently drawn to mark these territories as occupied Estonian lands (type "Eesti" in google and see pictures, many maps will be like that). In Lithuania the situation is that government refused all claims to such territories which were claimed in the interwar. The article is a very good way to compare the stance towards these lost territories in all three countries; as the reasons for loosing them and situations were similar. Also, it is at the same time as the list of those territories with links to their respective artciles; so person who needs this infor but does not know well what territories of Baltic States were lost, could see this to get the info (as there are links back from the articles baout the respective territories to this article). BTW, to all who does not know the history of region too well, all Baltic States were occupied by Soviet Union for the firts time in start of WW2, and for the second time at the end of WW2, and the detaching of territories happened during first years of occupation in all cases (I mean, each of the Baltic States was made into an Soviet Socialist Republic, part of USSR, while these territories, despite of being part of independent states previously, were attached to other Soviet Socialist Republics instead; after indeependence was redeclared in 1990/1991 therefore these territories did not became part of Baltic States again). During the interwar period, all three countries were independent states for whole period.DeirYassin 17:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Refer to Requested moves, keep preferable to deletion if move not possible. POV is no reason for deletion. The problem here is the word 'occupied'. Consider changing to annexed. Wouldn't that solve the problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Annexed is less politically charged than occupied, but I think it still means the same thing. I wish to replace the word Occupied with Disputed. Other than the renaming of the article, it should be kept, but clean-up any POV sections. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename and clean-up ('disputed' sounds good). I found this intriguing - but I want to know what a Russian perspective would be --Doc Glasgow 21:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Disputed would also be incorrect, at least for 2 out of 3 Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania. Both of these countries have signed (or are just about to, see news link) agreements with Russia recognizing the current borders.  The agreement between Latvia and Russia is stalled, but even there the dispute is not so much about territory, which Latvia knows it has no hope of getting, but rather about compensation for the depradations of the Soviet regime in Latvia.  How about Lost territories of the Baltic States as a name which reflects the actual state of affairs. Balcer 21:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unencyclopedic, arbitrary bundling of issues into one. Each country has an article about its history. It may contain whatever territorial gains/losses happened throughout its history, including a very ridiculous claim abiout Konigsberg in the current context, but would be pretty clear if explained historically.
 * Also, bundling "baltic states" into baltic states is a bit of disrespect, although I know the history. But why Finland is not here? In the context of Soviet history, its losses would be more than relevant to the region/issue. Mikkalai 03:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Mainly because of the Russo-Finno War and the loss of Karelia? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Karelia's loss was not exactly similar as loss of these mentioned territories; these territories were all detached after whole countries were occupied, while it was not so for Karelia. Of course, if someone wishes so, comments about Finland could be added. And there is no ridiculous claim about Koenigsberg, it is said that "some" territories of Kaliningrad Oblast used to be dominated by Lithuanians; not the city of Koenigsberg however, and that is explained. And anyways these territories aren't added to occupied territories and it's explained why they aren't. And grouping is useful same as all lists, so person who heard first time abou tthis we.g. at Abrene region could then see about whole issue in otehr Baltic states too DeirYassin 05:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why the article is described as POV: you pick and group issues selectively. Shall we write and article "Belarussian territories occupied by Lithuania"? What about Vilnius? How many Lithuanians lived in the area at the beginning of the century? And what about saying thank you to the Soviet Union for lithuaninas got it back after Pilsudski grabbed it? And so on. Thank you for not listing Belarus as taken away from GDL and Poland and ruthlessly occupied by Belarussians. Mikkalai 16:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Vilnius wasn't Lithuanian at the start of century but was Lithuanian once (before XVII age), territory of Lithuanian nation retrated over the time because Old Byelorussian at first and then Polish were written official languages and so people in cities started to learn them and even speak as native, same happened e.g. in Ireland with English changing Irish. But however, this does not matters, the fact is the fact that all the regions mentioned in article belonged to the said countries during interwar (at least for some time, and these borders were officially defined). Interwar was already tiime of national states, and current Baltic States, at least officially, are the same states as they were iinterwar (officially the independence ws not declared, but restated: i.e. this was similar to e.g. France regaining independence after WW2; that's why in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia articles we have two indepndence days). What happened in medieval when there were no national countries and such is one thing, what happened in the interwar is another. If you say nationality is the onkly important thing than e.g. Anschluss was right too and such. Anyways, this article is eligible about an eligible subject. If you want to add info about more point of views, feel free to do so but that is no reason for deletion.
 * My reason for deletion is an arbitrary grouping three states into one. I suspect, to make losses more impressive. Who forbids you to put the corresponding pieces into the histories of the respective states, in proper context? Mikkalai 16:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Because, it is not only history. As I said, both in Estonia and (especially) Latvia this place it's role in politics, relations with Russia. the situations of all the lost lands were practically the same, detached by same power at similar time at same circumstances. In all cases states reconises themselves to be same states as were in the interwar, and all what occupational governemnt done is considered to be against laws as they according to this view had no right for that. In Lithuania the role in politics is less of course, but still because everything happened under same circumstances, it is an eligible comparement. Sam eyou could write e.g. an article on Changes of state boundaries because of WW2 in Europe - would be an encyclopedic subject, even though it includes only European countries.


 * Delete and start the article again: under a new name, with new, more balanced views, less POV and more facts. Sorry, DeirYassin, I appreciate your input, but that thingie is simply too POVed and too one-sided. Halibutt 05:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, parts of this article as mentions of former territories may be put into articles Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia. If tomorrow everyone would start counting his lost lands and occupied territories - this won't be good. --Czalex 06:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - as it was said, POV is not reason for deletion, if someone sees this as POV it might be edited and moved to a new name. While now it seems that there is certain group of people, who wants to deny that these territories belonged to said countries altogether. But they did, and it is said in article which countries looks back to these territories and which countries does not, but the subject is encyclopedic clearly, it influences politics even now in some cases, and even oif it wouldnt, it would still be notable cause that is a real historical thing. DeirYassin 06:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, territorial loss differs from territorial loss; in some cases, as in this one, it is done by occupying power and was done quite recently. In medieval period when everybody was grabbing lands and such is another thing. Also in this case the mentioned territories are important now too; I understand that some people might find terirtorial claims in general to be stupid for one reason or another, or territorial disputes and such, but that does not makes them any less encyclopedic. And there are many articles about not exactly claimed territories which some people imagines as independent state or as part of another state, e.g. Republic of New Africa.DeirYassin 08:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Only Keep. Very good article and very correct name of the article. As I see here, most demanding of "deletion" are polish nationalists which don't like the fact that pre-war Poland was extremely agressive dictatorship state, which occupied and opressed neighbour nations. The spirit of this fascist state still is alive today - demanding of deletions , blockings  etcr of otherwise-minded users. Zivinbudas 09:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep, rename and de-POV. This is a notable historical issue I was not aware of. The information might also be merged elsewhere. Martg76 11:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, revise. 66.94.94.154 13:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * wait. I see, that we solve only problems, concerning Lithuania now. Let's wait, what will Latvians and Estonians say. Linas Lituanus 20:31, 2005 May 16 (UTC)


 * P.S. Lithuanian part needs at least improvement. The first thing, that Latvian and Estonian position is official, but Lithuania never expressed such official position now as it is described in the article (Lithuania has treatments both with Belarus and Poland!). So, it's incomparable and deceptive. But the fate of the article should depend on Latvian-Estonian part, not on this irrelevant Lithuanian controversy. Linas Lituanus 20:31, 2005 May 16 (UTC)


 * Exactly right. There is considerable contrast between the treatment of border issues in Lithuania as opposed to in Latvia and Estonia.  In a nutshell, Lithuania has officially settled all border claims with its neighbours, while Latvia and Estonia still have some outstanding issues.  This lumping of Lithuania with the other two countries, done by Lithuanian editors, leads me to suspect that there is a bit of a hidden agenda here, possibly subconscious.  Just maybe the authors are not happy that Lithuania recognised its current borders, and so they want to talk about Lithuanian border issues in the same article as they talk about Latvian and Estonian issues.  This might then create the impression that Lithuania is still claiming territories like Latvia and Estonia, which is not the case! Balcer 20:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is an explaination in the article however that "different stances exists towards these territories in different Baltic States", and there it explains differences between Lithuanian and Latvian and Estonian stances. They are all grouped because they were all detached at same time, under same circumstances, by same power (Soviet Union), all three countries are nearby and frequently grouped into one region anyways, shares similar history, shares similar claim that their independence was restated rather than declared, were only countries of former USSR to be indepndent whole interwar period, in all those detached territories russifying was done (not creating Lithuanian/Latvian/Estonian schools, etc.), etc. Differences in views towards these territories are explained in the article, and if you want, feel free to add more information about that.DeirYassin 21:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add only, that legally The Lithuanian-Soviet Peace Treatment of July 12, 1920 (including part on border) still is in force. All followed treatmens appeal on this treatment. Our situation is absolutely the same like of Estonians and Latvians - they don't demand of returning of these territories, they only appeal to Peace Treatments with the Soviets of 1920. On other aspects I fully agree with DeirYassin. 85.206.194.118 21:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I dislike this idea very much. Both You, booth Belarusian colleagues look at the situation very formally. Belarus is an independent sovereign state now and our treaties with Belarus couldn't be presupposed with treaties with former Soviet Union (i. e. with Russia presently, which doesn't rule this part of Vilnius region). I appeal to Lithuanians, that they shouldn't make Belaruses to increase this flush of formalities. There are many aspects of every state, not linguistic alone. When ones base the citizenship of Lithuania on being not Slavic, it's rather his idee fixe than reality. I doubt, if Belarusians don't know that census of Belarusians in Vilnius is about 1 percent only? Or that such nationality as Slaves doesn't exist? But they say all this mostly because they are offended and made to defend some ideas. But even such avoidable points are possible to be presented in more acceptable form, than it's in the present version. Don't push others to no-go, at least avoiding being pushed there yourselves. Linas Lituanus 16:43, 2005 May 18 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that Vilnius nor the part of region which was given back to Lithuania never had significant portion of Belarussians, it was first Lithuanian, then parts of it were polonized. As for the Eastern Vilnis region (part of Vilnius region no win Belarus), parts of it originally had Lithuanian majority, parts of it had Belorussian majority; parts of regions with both majorities were polonized later. The opinion of some nationalist Belorussians is however, that Lithuanian Great Duchy was a Belorussian creation and therefore Belarus supposedly has historical right to claim some territories which were in LGD, and especially polonized Lithuanian territories as it is easier to claim then that those are actually polonized Belarussian territories, because Belarussians were supposedly major nation of LGD. Anyways, I do not support such opinion of course, I rather said, that if this opinion is popular in Belarus (and taht is up for Belorussian wikipedians to say, I haven't been to Belarus so I don't know), it might deserve an inclusion as an opinion not as a fact of course. Both arguements supporting it and arguemens against it would be written, I think there would be more of later, that is my opinion however. There are many such articles on opinons, e.g. about antisemitism - now it is generally agreed that Jews aren't lower than other people, but some are still antisemitic and this had influence in history, therefore there is an article about it. Same for any significant ideas; I don't know if that idea about Vilnius supposedly being occupied by Lithuania is really significant however, or just held by a bunch of Belorussian nationalists. If the it is held by a bunch of people only, it shouldn't be included, because I am sure there are various opinions, even most stupid, which are held by few people, maybe even e.g. opinion that all the world should belong to for example Russia or USA, but those do not merits articles. DeirYassin 17:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete--Duk 22:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Deleted or Rename. Only Baltic states point of view represented => it's not neutral by default. Agree with Mikkalai and Czalex. --EugeneZelenko 01:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So you should edit the article and try to represent other point of view too if you think that way would be more neutral; no article is perfect from start and it is no reason for deletion that an article is not perfect, it is a reason for improvement. I understand that especially due to former Soviet education probably, which used to teach that each SSR is the sole homeland for all the people in the world of the titular nation, current borders might seem sacred to some people, but that still does not make this topic less encyclopedic. The reason that one disagrees with some territorial claim or such is not the reason for it's deletion. DeirYassin 06:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I know about point of view of very anti-Soviet and democratic (http://svaboda.org) oriented people that Wilno is Belarusian city, and was given to Lithuanian SSR by Soviet Union away from Belarus. So whose territory is occupied in this case? Why title tells only about Baltic States? --EugeneZelenko 14:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Vilnius did not have Belarussian majority though, and parts of what is currently northwest Belarus certainly did had Lithuanian majority once (as for real information, in fact up till slavinisation (which happened due to Polish and Old Byelorussian being more prestigious languages at the time than Lithuanian) XVII age more than 50% of what is called Eastern Vilnius region was Lithuanian - I'll agree however that for example Gardinas/Hrodna was not ethnically Lithuanian, at least not in XVII age, I don't have earlier information. If we count what nation lived where historically, that is where claim over that region, or at least big parts of it, might arise. As for XX age between world wars however, you are right that the region around Vilnius was not Lithuanian-speaking - however, that is just immediate region around Vilnisu, regions around Šven& and Druskininkai for example were Lithuanian speaking then too, and same for some towns (Lazd&, Gerv&, Pelesa) in current day Belarus, which were russianised by Soviets and now only some old people speaks Lithuanian in the area (in 70s there were around 50,000). In other words, according to XX age situation Soviets distributed the region with some Lithuanian-spekaing enclaves getting into Belarus, and Polish-speaking areas distributed between both SSRs. However, historically Lithuanians has rights to more territories, theoretically, and has historical rights to all territories of current Lithuania, because in every territory of it once there was a majority of Lithuanian speakers). Anyways, the idea that Vilnius is occupied by Lithuania supposedly, if that is widespread, might be represented in same way: maybe you could write an article about territories which some Belarussian groups (if those are influential groups) considers should belong to their state and such (and reasons for these claims, and opinion about them of other people and various facts). Wikipedia is big, as long as it will be NPOV and tell it as an opinion with reasons instead of a fact, it is ok IMO. Same as e.g. even most radical believes such as neo-nazism are written about, and their views are given, that does not mean showever that teh article about neo-nazism is automatically neo-nazi. And this article is about Baltic States. If there is an article like "History of Europe" someone maybe say "Why this tells only about Europe?" but well, there are different articles in different scopes, you can create an article about Belarus. DeirYassin 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep--Frjwoolley 14:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This article have a strong POV regarding Anti-pole, anti-german, and anti-russian sentiments. For example, the claim that East Prussia should count as historicaly/ethnical lithuanian I found it ridicuous, since it has been under German/Prussian control for centuries and at any moment (not even in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) control of other country. Memel was annexed by Lithuania against the decition of the League of Nations (wich mandate a referendum that could decide the fate of the city) and taking the oportunity that the Republic of Weimar was weak. So at least in this cases, The Baltic state of Lithuania, as a independent nation, took over a territory that did not belong to it. Also, the remarks of facist poles only show intolerance and completely ignorance of the historical picture of the time: If we start talking about historicaly/ethnical territories that should be in control of their republics, then Poland has a historical claim over half of Ukraine or almost all Belarus, and almost all the baltic region. Another example (sort of out of topic, but it helps) could be the claim that Mexico should have control over Texas, Arizona and California, since it has historicaly/ethnical claim to have those territories. Regarding Russia, Vilnus was reestablished as the capital of the Lithuanian SSR, and I believe that the soviets manage to gave some territory to the baltics and remove some others. The USSR is now a difunct entity, and claiming those areas already under russian jurisdiction (at least in my opinion) is something that is not only wrong, but also that in some way doesn't help to heal the wounds that the USSR left. If we start creating articles like this one, then Wikipedia would be overfloded with territorial claims: My country, Peru, could label Tarapaca as Disputed territory with Chile, since they took it over after war or occupation. Lets walk to the futur, and individual claims (if the persistence to have them in wiki is strong) should be on their respective country. This article only shows a clearly xenofobic POV and fail to give a fair treatment to the countries accused. Messhermit 19:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * East part of East Prussia historically had majority of Lithuanians, that was the only thing which was said, and that zone ws not included as an occupied part of Lithuania because ethnicity is not a legitimate reason to consider it occupation, as you said yourself. And Wikipedia has to have info about past as well, not only future, and about all opinions, even radical ones. DeirYassin 20:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't contradict the fact that Memel and most of it was under German/Prussian control for centuries (dating back even for the days of the Teutonic Order States). That the territory is under lithuanian occupation doesn't mean that IT should be in that way, that reminds me of the ill fated attempts by the Soviet Government to "sell" the idea that indeed those were slavic lands. Also, Wikipedia is a NPOV enciclopedia, and not a heaven for radicalism or extreme nationalism: your argument is wrong in that sence. About the past, Wikipedia has indeed a lot, but we must be carefully enought (and not to be fool in some cases) to prevent any attemp to rewrite it. This article clearly modify the history in favor of a group of countries, withouth looking at the hole geopolitical sphere and also disregarding the history of the other countries involved. Once again, I support delete this article. Messhermit 20:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Make it NPOV then. The fact is that whoever supports the opinion, it is still a valid opinion, especially in Latvian and Estonain cases where it plays even a role in politics. That nazism was a bad ideology does not means that we shouldnt write anything about it on wikipedia; your own personal believe sthat we must get over claims and look to future does not means we should ignore claims. As for the easitern part of East Prussia, it was under Lithuanian control at first, during the rule of king Mindaugas in 13th centure the order conquered it - however, yet again I will state a fact, it is not claimed in the article that eastern part of East Prussia is occupied, I know that 700 year old events aren't reason to include it there lol. It is merely explained why it is not included; this article is not about nationalist claims, that's why. It is rather about the real historical events where territories were detached by Soviets, and in 2 out of 3 countries this influences politics and foreign relations even up till now (not signing the border treaty with Russia), therefore it is significant and important IMO. POV is not reason for deletion, and anybody can edit wikipedia and make it NPOV. DeirYassin 21:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Messhermit, your statements on Klaipeda are completely false. Klaipeda region (Northern part of Lithuania Minor) was separated from Germany after WWI in 1919 by Treaty of Versailles and was designed to unite to Lithuania. Reunion was delayed because of polish intrigues. Lithuanians only pushed this process. It was recognized by Legue of Nations and by Germany in 1928 (German-Lithuanian Border Treatment). Zivinbudas 04:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Trying to sort out "ethnic control" of these areas is a fruitless argument: they were tremendously multi-ethnic for centuries.  Eastern East Prussia (including Memel) and western Lithuania had Lithuanians, Germans, Austrians (from the Salzburg refugees of 1731) and Jews all mixed together in large quantities.  The big coastal trading cities (Konigsberg, Memel) were more German, the rural areas often more Lithuanian.  Go south or east and you add other nationalities as well.  Some families intermarried.  The Nazis destroyed the Jewish communities, some of the largest in Europe, in the Holocaust.  After 1944 the Soviets (and occasionally others) started killing or moving people -- including all the Germans and Austrians -- to create neater boundaries along the lines they wanted.  They imported Russians to replace the purged peoples (i.e. in East Prussia) or to "Russify" areas like the Baltics.  But for centuries before that it was not relatively "neat" as it is today.  Coll7


 * If you read this article it clearly shows that the french were in charge of the territory so a plesbicite could be realice. The fact that Lithuania used force to control the territory may imply its changes to lose it. Also, ironicaly, it was the soviet who award it once again to Lithuania.   This is another page that talk about this. Also, I strongly suggest that if any claim is made, it should be explained in the history of its respective countries. Russia, Germany and Poland should have a voice here too. Messhermit 17:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just today Estonia and Russia finally signed a pact confirming their borders (see news story). The treaty did not change in any way the borders drawn during the Soviet times between the republics of the USSR. This means that the only Baltic country left whose borders are in any way contested is Latvia.  Even there the solution is likely within a few months, with likelihood of any territory changing hands vanishingly small.  In short, the case for deleting this article or at the very least renaming it just got stronger today. Balcer 18:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to delete this article IMO; even if Latvia would have signed it as well, this article is still about a clear fact: territories of Baltic States, which were detached during Soviet occupation. It influenced politics of Estonia and other things were for 14 years, as for Latvia, up until now. There are things like maps with those territories included and such, and in each of states the reaction towards such things is different. Historical disputed, and historical claims has a place in Wikipedia; if e.g. Pakistan, India and China would sign a treaty delimiting borders in Kashmir tomorrow, I don't think that would mean that the information about the dispute should be removed altogether from Wikipedia. History is important part of our life and all encyclopedias. DeirYassin 18:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What is said is true, but the articles should not be created arbitrarily. The current article must be deleted. Its content must go in two directions:
 * Into histories/geographies of each Baltic state.
 * Into Territorial changes of the Soviet Union. This is a very interesting topic. It includes both annexions and redistribution of territories between the Union republics. This happened not only in Baltic states. For example, Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine, and now it also a source of trouble. The same happened in Caucasus and Central Asia. IMO all this deserves a single article, from a common perspective; a good addition to the Population transfer in the Soviet Union, still another light on the internal works of this huge empire. Mikkalai 18:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The comments by Mikkalai above sound sensible and even-handed to me, and I support such a Merge. Current text is too POV.  Realistically, these areas were annexed by the Soviet Union as Stalin came back in 1939-45 for border areas they lost during the civil and ethnic wars over the breakup of Imperial and Republican Russia in 1918-21.  This doesn't mean what happened wasn't unjust or accompanied by murder and ethnic cleansing, but our anger at those things can't color our discussion of the facts. Coll7


 * Maybe one such article could be made, but I still think there should be articles for each region of Soviet Union too, because the situation was different everywhere. While as for Baltic States, their respective borders were clearly defined in interwar by deals between said Baltic States and Soviet Russia, for example in Central Asia, formerly populated by nomads in many cases, boundaries between SSRs were drawn anew actually, that way including some territories of one central Asian nations to otehr antion's SSR because it was probably impossible otherwise, there are many exclaves too. In Caucasus it was another case also. Another case with Crimea too as Crimea historically was Crimean Tatar, neither Russian nor Ukrainean, it was not the case with territories mentioned in this article and such. So there should probably be such articles on these regions: Baltic States (changes compared to the recognised boundaries of interwar), Ukraine/Belarus/Moldavia (changes compared to boundaries of short lived Belarus and Ukranean states and to the Bessarabia (detached territory of Romania)), Caucassus (smaller nations attached to larger SSRs, history of Transcaucasian USSR, etc.), Central Asia (new boundaries drawn). This article should remain then as the information abot the Baltic States region IMO. DeirYassin 19:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that the article about the territorial changes of the USSR can be much more usefull that this one. Also, claiming that the secession of those territories definied the foreign policy of those 2 countries, I found hard to believe: territories go, territories come, that's history. And with the signing of the treaty between the Russian Federation and Estonia is a clear example that this issues are more related with the history of each country rather than for a hole region. Lithuania and Latvia must solve their own borders by their own. Messhermit 20:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Number of articles is not limited though, there can be several different ones as I said above, one about changes in general and others more specific ones; it is this way about many subjects and then sub-subjects. And yes it surely influenced foreign policy, Latvian-Russian border treaty wasn'tsigned exactly for the reason of Abrene region. It is your personal POV that "territories come, territories go" and people shouldn't care: in fact, in the world there are many conflicts over territories, such as Kashmir, Golan Heights, Nagorno Karabagh (probably spelled incorrectly here) and so on, and also many conflicts on small areas, islands and such. All these cases are encyclopedic and has articles about them. Your POV would be good in ideal world where no countries would attack others or annex territories illegally, but currently it is clearly not the case so applying that POV it would be "the one who is the strongest has rights to territories of weaker nations in case he decides the territories should belong to him". DeirYassin 21:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, maybe my POV is utopic for some. but at any moment I'm implaying that it should be stated in the page. My point for using that line was that excusing some of the Lithuan/Estonian/Latvian problems on territories is totally out of the context. Also, you can't blame all those problems on the Russian Federation, in the same way that the Arab states cannot justify their backwards as fault of Israel. Messhermit 03:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You can edit the article to make it more NPOV where you think it'd be applicable, POV is not reason for deletion. DeirYassin 04:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Messhermit, your provided "memellanders'" webs are very impressive, especially first with piece of Nazi propaganda "Memel is Free!" Those "sources" are full of falsifications: Statistic:
 * In Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region) polish consisted about 8% of population, not 80% like is stated in that "source" (See Talk:Vilnius).
 * In Klaipeda region (Northern part of Lithuania Minor) Germans didn't consist majority in 1923.

Year 1925 (2 years after reunion) (Klaipeda city including) (in percent):

Lithuanians     50,7 Germans         45,2 Others           4,1 Total          100,0

Year 1932 (Klaipeda city including) (in percent):

Lithuanians     58,5 Germans         38,2 Others           3,3 Total          100,0

Source: Rudolfas Valsonokas (Jewish author). Klaip&#279;dos problema. Klaip&#279;da, 1932.
 * Klaipeda was reunited with Lithuania in 1945 (as Sudetes with Czechoslovakia), not in 1947. Zivinbudas 20:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but accusing me of Nazi pages or something like that is clearly innapropiate and out of the topic. Those sites are locate in the first pages if you search for Memel in Google, and gave stadistic of Memel. As for reunited, you must refer to the Lithuanian SSR, a contituent of the USSR. Also, several history books in the US also teach that Memel was annexed unilateraly by Lithuania, a fact that even you acknowledge to "speed" the proceses. I'm not german, so those accusations of "Lies" or something, disscuss them with a german wikipedist. (Btw, I just realice that link of Nazi something at the bottom of one of the pages I gave, I didn't notice on the first place). Messhermit 22:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You mix two things: population percentages in city of Klaipeda itself, and population percentages of Klaipeda region as a whole. City of Klaipeda had more Germans, but whole Klaipeda region (with the city itself included) had Lithuanian majority, the percentages that Zivinbudas gave. Same thing e.g. was in Latvia after collapse of USSR when cities had Russian majority and in various other examples. Similar thing was in Vilnius region too to some extend, where Poles also constitued higher percentage in city of Vilnius itself than in Vilnius region. Btw one of the links you gave was actually Wikipedia mirror.DeirYassin 22:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * National minorities inside a country doesn't mean that they should be part of their respective country: another example is the one of Azerbaiyan, wich has a considerable ammount of population in Iran northener provinces, this does not imply that they should be part of the Republic of Azerbaiyan itself. Once again, this proves that this territorial lost should be covered on each of those republics involved, and not in the region. About the link, I didn't known it was a mirror, I just read some info that I considerated to be important. Messhermit 22:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, national minorities inside country doesn't mean that they should be part of their respective country. That is why Polish actions in Vilnius region were occupation, as the eastern border of Lithuania was set by treaty. And that is the point of this whole article, about those detached territories from all Baltic States. And IMO the grouping is needed as events were very similar, practically same, in all three countries, and people frequently consider these three countries to be one group anyways, they has common history and such, so this is a good place for someone who e.g. just recenntly heard about conflict on Abrene region to find out more about this problem and how it is/was dealt with in the Baltic States. And it can be covered in particular country histories too of course. Wikipedia is big, same as there are for example list of various states by both populations and sizes and such, and same as for example there are separate articles for Colonialism in America, Colonialism in Africa, etc. and as well on Colonialism in general; at the same time there can be articles on e.g. colonialism by country such as Spanish Colonialism, English Colonialism, etc. Same there could be articles on this issue - it as included in countries histories, and it as a separate issue. We are not deleting e.g. Colonialism in America article just because all what itsays might be covered in histories of all the American countries.DeirYassin 22:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

My opinion on the article is this - it should include information on Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania - the eastern front of Operation Barbarossa from World War II, and it should discuss the territorial shifts in those four states in the aftermath of World War II. And that's that. It can be linked to a larger article on Operation Barbarossa, or Soviet Empire, or whatever. The information deserves discussion, but only within the larger context.
 * I don't think that Petseri and the eastern bank of the Narva River - which were part of Estonian territory from 1920-1944, should be considered 'occupied territories.' Estonia and Russia agree on their borders - Russia just refuses to ratify the border treaty because Estonia's preamble to the treaty mentions documents that mention the Soviet occupation. Estonia no longer claims those territories. There are some right wing parties in Estonia that do - but there are some right wing politicians in Russia (Zhiranovsky) that think Alaska really belongs to Russia. They are not of importance because neither has officially disputed this territory. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said this week that Russia is willing to sign the agreement with Estonia, so long as there is no political declaration attached. There is no contest over territory.