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

I've got a suggestion. I have seen many points put forward by the side, which denies the fact of Soviet occupation, however, so far little – if any – SOURCES have been given by those people. So arguing with them has not been very prolific, very fertile so to say, if we bear in mind improving the Wikipedia articles (the trouble is, we can base articles on sources only: WP:V). But I admit we can make things work. Let us consider the comment by Dojarca: "No. No matter now the baltics joined the USSR, since that moment it cannot be occupation, as an occupation is the control over foreign territory. Can you please learn the dictionary definition after all?" or "If the countries belong to the USSR, they are not occupied regardless how they became part of the USSR"Have these intriguing arguments been used in international law magazines? Why have so important objections remained apparently uncovered by specialists? Well, it would make sense, if you would publish your innovative approach in a magazine and then refer to it. I repeat: it would be an important innovation! And it would be acceptable for Wikipedia: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." (Verifiability). This is the point when we can really start using your theses. E.J. 11:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * May be because serious historians do not disprove any revisionist lies they encounter. I also did not see any disproofs of Fomenko's widely spread theory that Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible and Tamerlan were actually one person. For example, former world chess champion and Russian politician Kasparov supports this theory, there are many books etc. --Dojarca 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like you just haven't tried to find disproofs. Andrey Zaliznyak refuted Fomenko. But this is an entirely different situation, and strong words like revisionist lies won't help you here. Colchicum 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Latvian position
I've searched Internet and found this interesting document published on the site of Latvian foreign ministry. It's title is "Occupation of Latvia: historical and international law-related aspects". Dispite the title the word "occupation" used only a few times in the article. First time the author says that in 1940 Latvia "fell in hands" of Red Army, whih is "one of features" of occupation accurding to 1907 Hague Principles (i.e. "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army"). Saying Latvia was occupied the author cites a magazine and places the entire phrase in quotes. Later the author uses olny words "annexation" and "incorporation" relative to acception of Latvia in the USSR, but notes that the annexation was illegal because it was "based on occupation". The article nowhere says that occupation lasted until 1990.--Dojarca 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)