Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Occupation of Baltic states/Archive

Agreeing to terms
Hey, I'm Jacroe; I'll be the mediator. Have both parties agreed to the terms located at the Mediation Cabal? Jacroe 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am. DLX 05:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. We will resume when Lantios has arrived. If at all possible remind him of this case. Jacroe 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree with those terms. Lantios 01:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. DLX if you would continue below at the next section and tell your full story. Lantios if you would use the section with your name. Jacroe

Statement of DLX
Baltic States were occupied in the eyes of themselves and rest of the world, excluding Soviet Union. For example, following sources:
 * Resolution of European Parliament from 1983 "the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and continues."
 * European Court of Human Rights: "After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991."
 * Recent examples of calling it occupation recently include Wall Street Journal (, subscribers only), BBC and many other international sources that have commented on recent events.

Also, in case of Estonia, Soviet Union occupied an independent country, as Otto Tief re-established Estonian government after German troops fled (see, ) as a continuation of pre-occupation government in accordance with Estonian constitution. While it may have been lasted only for few days before Soviet Union re-occupied Estonia, it was historically significant from the standpoint of the legal continuity of the Republic of Estonia.

Source quoted by Lantios, also confirms that United States of America saw it as an occupation, and furthermore, refused to recognize the takeover of Baltic States. "Probably as good an example [as any] was the Baltic states: we never recognized, in the U.S., the Soviet occupation or the takeover of the Baltic states".

Also, as a reply to Lantios, "There were no Baltic states in the UN" - United Nations was created in 1945, so Baltic States never had a chance to become a part of United Nations before 1991.

In conclusion, there are no non-Russian sources that do not recognize it as an occupation of independent countries. The article is well-referenced and follows NPOV guideline. DLX 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement of Lantios
Ok, here's why I think that this well-looking, well-sourced article is POV. In fact, there were no Baltic states from 1940 till 1991 (see definition of the word "state"). How could they be occupied if there were no states? Not only that, USSR did not occupy Baltic states since Soviet army was not hostile (see definition of the word "occupation"). Sure, anti-Soviet propaganda is available, USA even had "funny little embassies" of Baltic states during the Cold War, but it was the Cold War. There were no Baltic states in the UN. "Russia continues to maintain... ignoring the fact..." See? There are two major points of view in this controversy, one of them is declared false in the article. Russia denies Baltic 'occupation', not occupation, but 'occupation'. Lantios 02:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement of Vecrumba
The sovereign authority of the Baltic States continued to exist in exile, each of them having taken steps to insure that. Of course, they could not have forseen half a century would pass--when sovereignty was returned to Baltic soil. The passage of time cannot make an illegal act (occupation) legal (non-occupation). The Soviets occupied the Baltics illegally to begin with. The Nazis occupied the Baltics. And when the Nazis retreated, the Soviets reoccupied the Baltics--in Estonia, even taking down the Estonian flag. Plain and simple. The Baltics were in negotiations with the central Soviet to have the "occupation" named as such and branded illegal when the putsch came. The central Soviet had already declared the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, under which Hitler and Stalin agreed that the Baltics would go into the Soviet sphere, an illegal act. So even by the Soviet Union's own admission, Stalin's acts in the Baltics were illegal. The Russian "viewpoint" has absolutely no facts behind it. Well maybe half a fact here and there (the initial stationing of troops under the mutual assistance pact was not an occupation), but mainly all a pack of lies. The Russian Duma passes resolutions the Baltics (Latvia) legally joined the Soviet Union under international law. If this Russian position has a basis in fact, please, let's see it. Arguing whether the BBC put the the word "occupation" in quotes as a basis for determining whether the Baltics were or were not occupied is silly. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would remind Lantios that Stalin occupied the Baltics before there was ever a "Great Patriotic War", while Stalin and Hitler were still friends, and that Stalin did so under a pact with Hitler which even the Soviet Union eventually declared was illegal. Only Russia maintains that the current Baltic republics are not continuous with the first = consistent with their declaring their joining the USSR was legal = meaning no occupation. That Russian declaration has no substance in fact. No one, in any of these alleged "controversies" over occupation, has produced evidence supporting the Russian position of Baltic non-continuity . &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Petri Krohn
Sorry to jump in at this late state, but I may have something new to contribute this dicussion. What all of you are trying to do, is argue the case on its merits. That is not how Wikipedia works, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

Now, let's look at what reliable sources say about the issue:


 * The argument made by the "pro-occupation" side is, that the Baltic States were occupied territory from 1940 to 1991. (With the exception of two short periods of fierce flag-waving on Toompea.) There are plenty of post-1991 sources on-line supporting this view. Much of this can propably be traced back to the propaganda offices of the newly independent Baltic States. The primary reason for choosing this point-of-view seems to be that it legitimizes the "petit-apartheid" policy practiced by the states.
 * Most, if not all, pre-1990 reliable sources are "anti-occupation". These sources may refer to the events of July 1940 and the movement of Soviet troops as "occupation". This is however not the critical issue. Any source that refers to "Latvian SSR" (without the quotes), "Estonian SSR" or "Lithuanian SSR" is an anti-occupation source, and should must be counted as a refutation of the "occupation" view (or the Baltic occupation myth, as I would call it.)

As to the dispute itself: the title of the article makes it impossible to include both POVs in a neutral way, as mandated by WP:NPOV.

-- Petri Krohn 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In fact all references to the "occupation" of the Baltic States should be removed from Wikipedia, because they constitute hate speech. -- Petri Krohn 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice to know that you consider both European Court of Human Rights and European Parliament to be involved in "hate speech". And could you please come up with non-Soviet pre-1990 source that clearly states what you have claimed - and I mean official source, on par with European Parliament case from 1983. DLX 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a longer version of this argument at Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation denialism. I am planning to present the full argument in my user space. -- Petri Krohn 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with your argument is that it is devoid of WP:RS, therefore it lacks WP:V, therefore it must be considered WP:OR. Until you can back your argument with WP:RS and WP:V, you are basically just wasting your time, and ours. Martintg 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which one? The one about hate speech or the one about pre-1991 sources? -- Petri Krohn 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Staberinde
I am not familiar Latvian and Lithuanian situation but I know that Estonia's annexation(or "voluntary joining" as stalinists claim) by USSR broke that time Estonian laws, so even if we completely ignore earlier and later events(which we in reality can not do of course) then still, Estonia never legally joined USSR so Estonia was occupied. I believe that situation of Baltic states is very similar to German occupation of Czechoslovakia.--Staberinde 10:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Whiskey
I find the membership of UN hardly necessary, as Switzerland is still not the member of UN, and Peoples Republic of China had to wait it's membership until 70's after which Taiwan was ousted from UN. Also, if annexation would nullify occupation, then Golan heights wouldn't be any longer occupied territory, as they are formally annexed by Israel. --Whiskey 23:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to make a point, but Switzerland became a full member of the UN on September 10 2002, and had been a permanent observer state from 1948 to 2002. The point User:Lantios made was that neither of the Baltic states were recognized as members or even as "non-member entities" (cf. Palestine) by the UN. This is one argument that the Baltic states were actually recognized as a part of the Soviet Union for a few decades. Yury Petrachenko 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. My information about Swiss stand was a little bit old...


 * This is similar to the argument that as Soviet borders were "recognized," that implicitly recognized de jure possession of the Baltics by the USSR, which is not the case. Many arguments have been presented which might (tenuously) imply transfer of sovereignty; none which confirm it. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. So far, as I see it, both sides of the dispute only demonstrated arguments that require implications of some sort. Yury Petrachenko 01:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional questions to User:Lantios: Did Soviet Union occupy Baltic states 1939 or 1940? If it did, when did the occupation end? (I'm just trying to find Least common denominator to the discussion...)--Whiskey 10:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Response
Ok. DLX and Vercumba states that the Baltic states were in fact occupied by the soviet union, while Lantios states that they couldn't be occupied since they were not "states". Am I correct so far? Jacroe 19:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is an oversimplification, but generally correct. No states, no hostile army = no occupation of Baltic states. Lantios 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Lantios, do you have any references that could be used for this article? Jacroe 22:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article could be much more neutral even without additional references. Position of the whole country is declared false, words "state" and "occupation" are used incorrectly (their meaning can be found in Wikipedia). The fact that Russia denies 'occupation' is already referenced. Here are more sources in Russian that can help making the article more neutral:
 * RIA Novosti, Russian major news agency: Minister of defence, Sergey Ivanov, called occupation claims absurd. "You can not occupy something that belongs to you. Clearly, Baltic people are pawns in a geopolitical game".
 * Nezavisimaya Gazeta: "Occupation" as a political myth.
 * Regnum: "Occupation of Baltic states" — not a historical question, but a question of ambitions and good will.
 * A couple of sources in English worth adding to the article:
 * Regnum: Latvian parliament rejected idea of criminal punishment for denial of “Soviet occupation”.
 * Guardian: Russia's foreign intelligence service, the SVR, declassified documents claiming that Britain and the US had approved of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states.
 * Lantios 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me point out, that first four sources are Russian. It is an official stance of Russian Federation that Baltics happily joined Soviet Union, so we can disregard those sources as POV. Fifth source (if true) only shows, that US and UK were aware of it, doesn't change the fact of occupation. DLX 05:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By your twisted logic, we can point out that the official stance of US and UK is that there was an occupation, so we can disregard any source in English language as POV. Lantios 06:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Lantios, would you agree that Russian forces were "in" the area of Baltic states? Jacroe 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Soviet forces entered the area of Baltic states in the autumn of 1939. One year later Baltic states became Baltic Republics. The existence of Baltic states in the period of 1940-1991 is disputed, with USA and EU on one side, USSR and then Russia — on another. I guess, we can still say that Soviet (rather than Russian) forces were in the area of Baltic states. Lantios 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * DLX or Vercumba, do you have any information that contradicts what Lantios has stated? Jacroe 00:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, the problem is that all those who say the Baltics were not occupied come up with all sorts of contrivances why not. Russia has yet to produce anything showing the Soviet entries (first and second) were not occupations. (Recall that the Soviet Union had already drawn up maps of the Baltic "S.S.R."s and the deportation order before ever entering the Baltics.) Newspapers parroting the Russian position don't make it any more factual. And were Roosevelt and Churchill in a position to oppose anything Stalin did in Eastern Europe? Late in the war, Roosevelt thought he needed the Soviet Union to defeat Japan (bad intelligence). More to the point, Stalin invaded the Baltics while he was still best buddies with Hitler (having committed Soviet industry to providing war materials to the Nazis). There was no British/American/Soviet Alliance where Roosevelt and Churchill could have approved anything with Stalin. Lantios would say Russia says X, Latvia and the world say Y, X and Y are each a position to be represented equally. The Russian position, however, maintains the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law (not just according to Soviet law)-- a complete lie. So the Russian position can be noted, as it is; however, it is not an equal opposing viewpoint. As for troops "entering", there was entering under the mutual assistance pact (coerced, but legal), then the subsequent invasion, illegal; annexation, illegal = occupation. Everything Lantios cites is WP:OR or simply a red herring. Let's have the specifics on what the basis is for the Russian Duma insisting Latvia (and the Baltics) joined legally under international law. That is the only item that is relevant to this discussion, as it also directly results in the Russian position that the current Baltic republics are not continuous with the pre-WWII republics--while the Baltic republics and rest of the world regard that they are continuous. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Published material can not be WP:OR. Anyway, can you name any specific international laws that prohibit actions of the Soviet Union? Otherwise your words are pretty empty. I do believe that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Needless to say, even if one mistake is found in the position of Russian officials, it does not make other aspects of this position permanently inferior to other points of view. Besides, I do not think that finding errors in the official Russian point of view is a job for Wikipedia. Lantios 06:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actions which are prohibited? Perhaps unprovoked invasion by Soviet troops and immediate takeover of all governmental, postal, and communications facilities ? This is like asking where is it documented that robbery and assault are illegal.
 * These are not "mistakes" on the part of Russian authorities, they are continuations of (actually regressing to) the Soviet position which is, from the "occupation=yes" side, disproven by documented facts and which, from the "occupation=no" side has not a single substantiated fact to support it, that is, credible evidence of Baltic non-continuance and Baltic non-occupation. It's not about Wikipedia finding errors in the official Russian position, it's that there is no factual support in Wikipedia for the Russian position. Statement of and repetition of a position does not make it fact. As for WP:OR, "the Baltics were not members of the U.N." is a fact. That this "proves" Soviet de jure sovereignty over the Baltics and the discontinuity of Baltic sovereignty is your personal unsupported conclusion. Nor could the Soviet Union ever lay claim to legal sovereignty--legality cannot result from an illegal act, one of the cornerstones of international law. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 07:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget deportation of Baltic citizens to the Soviet Union prior to the so-called "petitions" of the Baltic republics to join the Soviet Union--a point in time during which the Soviet Union was insisting the Baltics were still sovereign (to make it plausible that the petitions were legal). We're talking "gross violations" (illegal) of international law. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 07:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, we do not know which international laws (if any) were broken by USSR. Claims that there are proofs that these unknown laws were broken are empty words, of course. You do not think that USSR broke more laws than modern Baltic states who currently have troops in Iraq, right? Deportation of Baltic citizens to the Soviet Union took place after they became Soviet citizens, on June 13 and June 14, 1941. Even if it would happen earlier, it would not prove anything without international laws. Lantios 08:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Russia is so fond of declaring the Latvian Waffen SS as the "SS convicted at Nuremberg" (false), let's see what principles of international law the U.N. verifies were validated at Nuremberg (Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1950/Add.1 (1950)):
 * Principle VI
 * The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
 * (b) War crimes:
 * Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
 * According to you deportations don't matter, where or when.
 * Treaties form the basis of relationships between sovereign states under international law. Under the treaty between the Soviet Union and Latvia, signed August 11, 1920, the Soviet Union "unreservedly recognises the independence and sovereignty of the Latvian State and voluntarily and forever renounces all sovereign rights... to Latvian people and territory." A further Non-Aggression Treaty was signed between Latvia and the Soviet Union on February 5, 1932. So, the Soviet invasion of the Baltics was illegal (not the only example) because the Soviets violated multiple treaties.
 * According to you illegal invasion results in a legal annexation of the Baltics, violating the fundamental principle of law that "ex iniuria ius non oritur" (illegal acts cannot produce legal results or rights).
 * For 60 years, the Soviet Union denied Stalin's alliance with Hitler, under which Stalin and Hitler illegally divided up Eastern Europe between them. The Soviets declared it a falsification (lie), only confessing to its existence in 1989.
 * According to you, you don't like what the Baltics do today and think it's illegal, and therefore the Baltics weren't occupied. Perhaps even deserved to be occupied?
 * Latvians were deported to the Soviet Union, including a large part of the government  before Latvia was part of the Soviet Union . A war crime. According to you, it still "proves nothing?"
 * Your arguments are devoid of facts, ignore facts, and have wrong "facts." Present something of substance that supports the Russian position. Based on facts, the mention the Russian position already gets is far more than it deserves. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are devoid of facts, ignore facts, and have wrong "facts." Present something of substance that supports the Russian position. Based on facts, the mention the Russian position already gets is far more than it deserves. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I should mention on the Guardian story, the quote of the Russian official: "Major General Lev Sotskov, told the Guardian it demonstrated that the UK and US "perfectly understood" that the region was needed as a buffer zone for the inevitable moment when Nazi Germany would break its non-aggression pact with Moscow and attack the Soviet Union." The Soviet Union coerced the Baltics into the stationing of Soviet troops under treaties of "mutual assistance" and invaded the Baltics long before Hitler and Stalin stopped being best buddies. There was no "recognized need" for any sort of buffer zone in 1939 or 1940. What there WAS was the then secret Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 insuring the Soviet Union could happily take over half of Eastern Europe with Hitler getting the other half. This sort of argument: sounding perhaps plausible at first but, on closer examination of the facts, not possibly making sense, pretty much sums up the Russian position on the whole matter of the Baltic occupation. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If we could apply Nuremberg Principles to the events before WWII, most of the wars and territory changes of the past would be illegal. "Devastation not justified by military necessity"... I do not remember any Americans tried for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There could be no invasion of Soviet troops in the Baltic states because Baltic states agreed to accept Soviet troops. As for all the treaties — remember the Atlantic Charter? "All peoples have a right to self-determination", cool. So, division of Germany was illegal? Nobody cared, I guess. Let's face facts, all this "legal/illegal" thing is not about treaties, it is about who won and who lost. You also write a lot of OR and irrelevant statements which I should not respond to. Lantios 04:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

( Reindenting ) Everything I have written in any article on Wikipedia has been from reputable sources. Nothing has been of my own origin. Where I have information that is not widely documented, I have noted that in discussions and not put it in articles (for example, negotiations prior to the collapse of the USSR for the central Soviet to recognize the Baltic annexations as illegal--from parties directly involved). Lack of resistance to invasion does not make it a non-invasion or a non-occupation--or an agreement or an invitation:
 * 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 interpretations 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". (U.N.)

"Let's face facts, all this 'legal/illegal' thing is not about treaties, it is about who won and who lost." So you're saying what agreements countries legally agree to be bound to (eternally, in fact) do not matter, what only matters is who wins, and whoever wins is right. This is representative of your scholarship on this topic? Still no sources or documentation for the basis of Russia's position. Let's take your example: what is the basis for Russian Minister of Defense, Sergey Ivanov, declaring: "You can not occupy something that belongs to you."? Please provide the basis under international law (as the Duma has declared) by which the Baltics "belonged" to the Soviet Union. Someone simply saying the Baltics belonged to the Soviet Union doesn't make it fact. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * More irrelevant statements. The Fourth Geneva Convention entered into force on October 21, 1950 and does not apply to prior events. Baltic states became functioning parts of the Soviet Union, that is a trivial fact. As for legality, as I said, the burden of proof is on prosecution. Lantios 07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you'd like citations to the first Hague Conventions, that will wait until I'm home. The Soviet Union confirmed it abided by them even though it was not a signatory. In the 19th century, invading your neighbor was a legal means for settling arguments, in the 20th it was not.
 * Regardless of international conventions, the Soviet Union broke its treaties with the Baltics by invading. That's all that's needed to make their invasion illegal. (You insist treaties don't matter.)
 * No one is arguing that the Soviet Union did not have de facto control of the Baltics, what you refer to as "functioning parts of the Soviet Union". The USSR did not have de jure control. That is why its presence was an occupation--and for the full term.
 * The Soviet Union recognized the right of the Baltics to live independently and free  for all time . Yet Russian generals today state "you can't invade what belongs to you." I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how, exactly, the Baltic states legally "belonged" to the Soviet Union and therefore were neither invaded nor occupied. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, is there any reason why we can't make a section in the article that explains both points of view? For example, you might show that the US and the UK state that it was in fact an occupation, while USSR states that it wasn't.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).
 * Let's represent all views in the article. Does anyone see anything wrong with this advice. Jacroe 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Both views are already presented in the article - even the lead says "Russia continues to maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate". Apparently Lantios wants remove the view of the world minus Russia from the article. DLX 06:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jacroe: all views should be properly expressed in the article. While they are not — the POV tag is valid and should be added. Lantios 07:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what is "neutral" about representing two positions "equally" where one is based in fact and one is not. Petri Krohn and others would ask us to cite Soviet sources as equally representative as factual representations of the past? This, from people who with clockwork precision rewrote history on the fly to suit their latest needs. (Not that anyone has cited any Soviet source in detail to engage in any sort of discourse.) I don't dismiss Soviet sources because they are Soviet--I have used them in other articles (Rainis). I do dismiss Soviet sources when the facts conclusively demonstrate those sources are false. Need I remind people again that the USSR printed Baltic S.S.R. maps and put deportation orders into place long before their invasion? Demonstrating clear intent? And having nothing to do with "liberation"? I repeat my question : The Soviet Union recognized the right of the Baltics to live independently and free  for all time . Yet Russian generals today state "you can't invade what belongs to you." I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on the occupation deniers, how exactly the Baltic states legally "belonged" to the Soviet Union and therefore were neither invaded nor occupied. You cannot simply declare occupation a "myth" based on personal notions of Cold War dynamics (and the Baltics were invaded by Stalin long before the Cold War ) when no one anywhere in any of these discussions has cited a single reputable source that stood up to scrutiny. Insertion of a POV flag requires basis in fact--which has yet to be demonstrated here, or anywhere else. I do not deny Russia her celebration over Hitler. But as Stalin had invaded and occupied the Baltics before Hitler ever showed up, while Stalin and Hitler were allies, Stalin's retaking of the Baltics from Hitler--and in Estonia, ripping down the Estonian flag as the Nazis had already retreated and left--cannot be anything but reoccupation. It was not a "Patriotic Great War liberation" for the simple fact that Stalin had already illegally invaded, subjugated, and occupied the Baltics. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that German forces retreated from Estonia only because of Soviet offensive.--Dojarca 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And who asked the Soviets to rip down the Estonian flag?


 * Note that the German army estimated Soviet losses at 140,000 just to take the Courland Pocket (also defended by Latvians)--the last bit of the Baltics not in Stalin's hands. Stalin sent in division after Red Army division to their slaughter just to ensure his retaking of the Baltics would be complete. (I'm sure Stalin recalled history, that the Latvians who had retreated to Libau/Liepaja staged a comeback to retake Latvia from its pre-independence Soviet takeover and declare an independent Latvia.) The Latvians who surrendered at the end of the war--the Courland Pocket outlasted the Reich--were shot as traitors.
 * I recall the Soviets quoting a number around 145,000 to "liberate" Latvia but I don't have the source handy. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently main problem with the article is that Russia's official position is practically not explained at all. I would suggest to simply create paragraph about Russia's official viewpoint to Occupation of Baltic states, same way as article Armenian Genocide explains official view of Turkey.--Staberinde 08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Estonian + Nazi flag?
An important historic fact: the Estonian flag, when it was removed, was flown together (and on the same mast) with the Nazi flag with swastika. Both were removed by Soviets at the same time. --Irpen 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be quite like the Nazis to fly both, after all, it was easier to pretend that way that they didn't have their own plans to Germanify the Baltics.
 * But to your point: the sources I have read specifically state that Estonian soldiers took down the swatstikas as the Nazis retreated, leaving only the Estonian flag on public buildings--at which point the subsequently invading Soviets took down the only flag flying--the Estonian flag. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a verifiable source for this? Yury Petrachenko 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, question is here, can you provide a verifiable source for "was flown together (and on the same mast) with the Nazi flag". DLX 14:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have to provide any sources as I haven't made any statements yet. User:Vecrumba mentioned "the sources" he reads, I wondered what were they. I think we should stick to published scholarly peer-reviewed articles from the mainstream journals. And if it turns out that there is consensus there, we should limit the encyclopedia to that view. If you want, I can send out the Springer paper you mention below, or (almost) any published paper. I have no idea if the flag issue is of any relevance here. Yury Petrachenko 17:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is relevant at all, especially since we haven't seen any sources supporting "Nazi flag" theory - but the article in question is in a scientific journal and has therefore passed scientific peer review - perhaps highest level of WP:RS and WP:V. DLX 06:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the most recent source that mentions the Nazi flag being flown along with the Estonian one. (translation)


 * "Estonian politicians love to recall this flag. But for some reasons they forget to mention that the Estonian tr-color was hanging not by itself. Next to it was the larger by size flag with Swastika and the Soviets soldiers liberating Tallinn removed them both. BTW, this is well-knon in Estonia as well. The magazine "Kultuur ja Elu" №3 (2004) contains the memoirs an Estonian legioner Evald Aruvald about these events."

Now we need an Estonian reader to verify what this Estonian article tells on the issue. DLX perhaps? TIA, -Irpen 07:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I can see the source for this. From the article:


 * However, since German troops were still occupying the city, next morning a liutenant came from commandant's office with six men to raise the German flag.


 * There were also Estonian flags flying on town hall and other buildings. DLX 08:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Some more quotes
Some quotes, though:

Also, I think this article discusses this, but unfortunately I cannot access SpringerLink. Why is this important in any case? DLX 14:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nordic Journal of International Law

 * Now that you mention it, I think it would be useful to have a long citation from this source (hopefully it's not a copy vio and addresses a few questions of this debate):

Yury Petrachenko 18:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Legality
I want to point out that wheather the annexation of the Baltic states was legal is not relevant to the issue. First it is not Wikipedia's business to determine legality. Secound, it should be underlined that for example Estonian govertment of Otto Pats was also illegal since 1934 coup, so dismissal of Soviet annexation on the basis of legality still cannot be accepted. In fact Soviet passports of inhabitants of Baltic states were recognized all over the world and sportsmen from those republics were recognized as representatives of the USSR.--Dojarca 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to break it to you, but Estonia has never had a government of Otto Pats. DLX 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dojarcao, the legality of annexation is the core of the issue . With said annexation being legal according to Baltic, Soviet, and international law, sovereignty ceases and the Baltics cannot be occupied--as well, and more importantly, the current Baltic states then are NOT continuous with the first republics = Russia's stated position.
 * The Baltics and the rest of the world have acknowledged the current Baltic states as continuous with the first. ERGO, Soviet occupation for the entire term of annexation. Russia holds otherwise (even though the USSR was about to acknowledge occupation of the Baltics when the putsch came).
 * Your example of passports is superfluous. People also traveled on  Baltic passports issued after the (illegal) annexation of the Baltic states .
 * Your erroneous example of Otto Pats (or were you simply insulting Konstanin Päts as a Nazi German "Otto"?) is also superfluous. The type of regime (authoritarian or democratic or monarchy) has no bearing on the sovereign rights of a state. It is not that the Soviet regimes in the Baltics were simply illegal, it is that they purported to represent the sovereign interests of the Baltic states--which those regimes did not, because they were illegal. &mdash;  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pats' government made a coup in 1934 and introduced new constitution several years later. Communists also invented their constitution in 1940. So they nothing more illegal then Pats' government.--Dojarca 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether you like Päts or not, it was an Estonian government answerable only to Estonia, having ZERO to do with the Soviet Union. Your claim that the Soviet Union subjugating the Baltics is no worse than Päts (or the other authoritarian regimes in the Baltics--and remember that pretty much every government in Europe was authoritarian at the time) is utterly baseless. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dictatorship is not answerable at all, dont you agree? Note that the Baltics were accepted into the USSR by request from their communist governments. These governments (if to suppose them illegal) were nothing more illegal than the provous regimes. They came to power as a result of elections, and Pats' government held power as a result of a coup.--Dojarca 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Elections? Certainly, detailed final results released to the press before the election was over.
 * As I said, all of Europe was authoritarian. What makes the Baltics completely different is the unprovoked Soviet invasion and occupation. Perhaps you have a reputable source to discuss?<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)