The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. A whole bundle of unconvincing arguments here, on both sides, but ultimately this is a classic POV fork, and it's also original synthesis. While there are plenty of "references" provided, the vast bulk of them are irrelevant to this term's notability and significance, and have been strung together to constitute a POV synthesized narrative. Moreschi Talk 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet occupation denialism

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

Zero google hits. Please delete politically-motivated original research with neo-Nazi overtones. This sort of OR brings WP into disrepute. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many 'votes' do you want Ghirlandajo? Nick mallory 09:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you talk about? --Ghirla-трёп- 09:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're googling it wrong. The search of [1] yields around 19,600 hits. (Note the subtraction of Palestine-related issues. Also note that this particular search string also subtracts every article explicitly comparing Soviet occupation denialism to Holocaust denialism, so the actual number of relevant articles is greater. Also also note that a great number of studies of this phenomenon has been done in languages other than English, and that identification of denialism as a distinct phenomenon is relatively new and, as such, not explicitly mentioned in many of them.)
And the first link reveals where this hate speech originates from; Diaspora politics in the United States! -- Petri Krohn 09:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you, being familiar with the history of Holocaust denial, deliberately trying to go for irony, advancing an argument that so openly parallels the peculiar xenophobic notion of Zionist Occupied Government? If so, I do not approve of your sense of humour. Digwuren 09:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your point in selecting one Googlelink is...? Also, everything you don't like isn't "hate speech", which are you denying this time - Soviet crimes or Russia's official stance on them? DLX 09:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you expand your field of search even further, you will get ten times more. None of your finds has any bearing to "Soviet occupation denialism", a neologism you coined a few hours ago. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not coin it, I translated it. The original I used is okupatsiooni eitamine, to wit: [2]. Digwuren 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We write an encyclopaedia in English, not in some obscure dialiect you quote. You should go with established terms in English scholarly discourse, rather than coining them when inspiration strikes. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your ethnic insult is noted and forgiven. Digwuren 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your assertion of "neo-Nazi overtones" have clearly no bearing whatsoever to this article. Digwuren 09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the phenomenon is or becomes notable, as is the phenomenon of Soviet occupation denial, certainly. It does not matter that extremist websites might quote Wikipedia on that. Your implication to the contrary constitutes appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. Digwuren 10:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the phenomenon is notable or "comparable to Holocaust denial" as you term it. The Soviet Union officially condemned and denounced the secret protocol to the Soviet-German Treaty. President Putin repeatedly referred to that act to underscore his position on the issue. If you have something more to say on the subject, please go to Soviet-German Pact, rather than inventing or "translating" new terms of inflammatory nature. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All that talk about "denials" (e.g., Holodomor denial) involves belittling of the Holocaust and the Holocaust denial, because it basically implies that the Holocaust is comparable to some other events in history. We know it is the fictitious under-pinning to the present anti-Russian campaign to rewrite history so that the Commies were much, much wickeder than the Nazis and their sympathizers. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The USSR saw its 'liberation' of the Baltic states from the Nazis as its justification for everything that followed. This ignores the fact that the USSR invaded and annexed the Baltic states in 1940 when the USSR was allied with Nazi Germany as part of the Nazi Soviet pact. The USSR also attacked Finland and Poland before Hitler turned on his former allies in 1941. Nick mallory 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may refer other editors to Soviet-German Pact without bothering to repeat the same mantra again and again in order to justify neologisms that were coined an hour or two ago. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was answering Echuck's question Ghirlandajo. What part of my answer is factually inaccurate? Nick mallory 10:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the following edit to make it clear that the Soviet Union officially recognized and denounced the fact of the occupation, no matter what some Russia-bashers claim. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of Gorbachev's statement is wrong. He only denounced the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact; he did not recognise or denounce the occupation. Further discussion on the related talk page. Digwuren 10:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that's the point isn't it? Improving the article by adding relevant information is better than simply airbrushing it from Wikipedia. Nick mallory 10:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the page consists of nothing but original research. In the lead, it states that the neologism invented by its author is "comparable to Holocaust denial". Ergo, the Soviet occupation is comparable to the Holocaust. That's what makes it so absurd. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding another perspective here. It has been typical of Soviet Union's treatment of history, and of the post-1991 Russian treatment of history, to view the World War II (see also Great Patriotic War) as a black-and-white battle of good Communists versus evil Nazis (typically called 'fascists' (Russian: фашисты). In light of this ideology, every claim that can be seen as casting disfavourable shadow upon Red Army's heroism, or the motivation of the 'good' Communist Party that directed the army, is seen as an act of allegiance with the 'evil' opponents, an attempt to heroize the Nazis. Accordingly, a number of the historians researching in 1980s and 1990s the Soviet crimes against humanity (committed mostly in 1940-1949) have been accused of neo-Nazism, mostly by Soviet and Russian authorities. Digwuren 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the present article. Do you deny the Estonians' involvement in the WWII massacres against Russian and Jewish population? Where have all the Latvian Jews gone during the war? You forget that in a few weeks a country as small as Estonia created 22 (!) death camps with the guards being almost all Estonians; that in 1941 9,000 Russian PoWs were "executed" by "Estonian Self-Defence"; that Estonian police battalions were particular murderous against Estonian Jews (out of the flourishing community of several thousand only around 12 had survived) and civilian population in Russia and Belarus completely burning down several villages with all their citizens, mostly women and children. It wasn't happening at the end of the war as a desperate attempt to get their, Estonian, hands on arms in the face of the coming Red Army as some try so hard to convince. It was happening right from the beginning. But do we have the article about the Estonian collaboration with the Nazis? No, we don't even have Soviet-Japanese War where my grandfather and great grandfather were killed by the way. Have the Estonian officials ever acknowledged their guilt in the Holocaust? If not, why do we have no article about the Estonian Holocaust denial? --Ghirla-трёп- 11:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stalin killed or deported 5,000 Latvian Jews during the first occupation, including the entire civic and political leadership. (And proportionally the highest number of any ethnic group.) That seems to have been conveniently forgotten. With its head cut off, the Jewish community was ill-equipped to mobilize itself when the Nazis invaded. Oh, and did I mention, of all the peoples Stalin deported to Siberia, Jews received the worst treatment of all? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the other war you mention is at Russo-Japanese War. I've created a redirect at Soviet-Japanese War. The war predated the establishment of the Soviet Union. JamesMLane t c 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed he meant Operation August Storm. That's where Soviet-Japanese War should be redirected. Everyking 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should redirect it to a dab page. As long as it redirects to Operation August Storm, though, that article should point the errant reader to Russo-Japanese War, so I've added the appropriate note. JamesMLane t c 06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed Dzyatlava massacre is under serious doubt by historians, and may be fictitious or misrepresented.
See, for example, an overview in [4]. As an illustrative example, Leo Pihelpuu, who, if the accusations were true, directly participated in the massacre and was so charged, was not executed, as the Soviet law of the time proscribed for crimes against humanity; instead, he was sentenced to 25+5.
I'm planning to work on the article, but given the delicacy of the matter, it needs thorough preparation. Do not hold your breath. Digwuren 11:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source on the matter appears to be at [5], specifically [6]. Digwuren 07:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're right: your accusations have nothing to do with the present article. Digwuren 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Estonian websites you quote are a fine specimen of Estonian Holocaust denial. The perpetrators of the Holocaust in Estonia were partially absolved, because the government of the Estonian SSR asked the matter to be suppressed. It was one of many mistakes of the Soviet government which encouraged the Estonians to believe that they had nothing to do with the Holocaust, while the Estonian (and Latvian) Jews simply evaporated, without any assistance on their part. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are your sources for this interesting conspiracy theory on Soviets turning a blind eye on crimes against humanity committed by others? Digwuren 07:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. So you're suggesting that the "Government of Estonian SSR" were actually neo-Nazis?? But remember, they were directly appointed by the communist party of USSR -- so the party leaders must have been Nazis? Eventually, maybe communist party itself was secretly a Nazi organization? On the other hand, Holocaust was not openly discussed in USSR. The history textbooks for schools did not specifically mention Jews; students were left with the impression that the main crime of Nazis was that they attacked USSR. Lebatsnok 09:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be making the peculiar argument that the Katyn massacre (and other Soviet atrocities) should be swept under a rug because if that is not done, Holocaust might be viewed by some as non-unique. Is that correct? Digwuren 12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "demand" anything to be "swept under a rug". I demand the articles to conform to WP:NOR. I don't think Wikipedia is a proper venue for introducing one's own neologisms and "research". If you are interested in researching "Soviet atrocities", please publish your findings in some reputable journal, prove that their denial is "comparable to Holocaust denial" and then return to Wikipedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I apologise for misunderstanding your position, and express the point of viewhope that if you browsed through the references, you would see that this article conforms to both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I especially recommend [7] which is very thorough, and takes a somewhat novel approach to the assessment of differences in interpretation of history, but all the references are worth reading. Digwuren 12:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla: Please assume good faith -- what I said is not a "tactic", but the way I think. And, the issue of Katyn may have been discussed, so what-- I was not part of that discussion (I only joined WP about 6 months ago), and this article seems to be a good place to put certain aspects of the Katyn massacre into a wider perspective, to wit, the refusal by some (including officials in the Russian government) to admit full resposibility for certain actions done by the Soviets in occupied countries, some decades ago. And, beg your pardon, why would the Katyn massacre committed by NKVD troops on occupied territory have "nothing to do with the subject of this page"? — Turgidson 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you identify Katyn (village) near Smolensk as "occupied territory", I don't think that further discussion with you will be worthwhile. Sorry. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad -- I got carried away with the geographical location where the massacre actually took place. I was thinking of the Polish officers being rounded up in Poland by Soviet occupying troops in 1939 -- that was the occupied territory I meant to refer to. Turgidson 19:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this position have a basis in Wikipedia policy? Digwuren 12:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view refers to both geographical and nationalistic bias, both of which are relevant here. You can see them at work at Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. BTLizard 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this is mere handwaving. There is nothing in WP:NPOV that would suggest refraining from creating articles on controversial topic out of concern that they may become battlefields for edit wars.
As for revisionist agenda, this particular revisionist ideology is quite notable, being part of the Russian Federation's official interpretation of history. It needs to be covered, under the very rules of WP:NPOV, as neutrally as we can manage. Digwuren 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, in your understanding, would be the other sides that need to be covered in this article? Digwuren 14:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not mention anything about the part that local (non-Russian) Soviet/Communist cadres played in the annexation/incorporation of the Baltic countries into the Soviet Union. - Francis Tyers · 20:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have currently trouble envisioning the relevance of that. Could you add the missing information, or at least suggest its scope and place in the article? Digwuren 07:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. - Francis Tyers · 14:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is incorrect.
First, the legal continuity of Baltic states is already discussed elsewhere. This article is about the POV that they (and other occupation victims) were not occupied, or that occupation-related atrocities did not take place.
Denialists of occupation have denied a number of things over the various years, and typically only stopped at any particular point when it became too embarrassing to not do so. Take, for example, the very existence of MRP, denial of which was officially maintained for over 50 years; the Katyn massacre, which the Soviets for years attempted to blame on Nazis and only Gorbachev admitted to; or the genocidal forced deportations of many tens of thousands of Baltic citizens that were covered up until mid-1980s.
Your attempt to make sense of denialist claims is admirable, but your summary of these claims, not taking into account the evolving nature of such claims, is wrong. Digwuren 13:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been planning to write the article on Legal continuity of the Baltic states for some time now. With the present atmosphere and the influx of one sided editors, I am however affraid the article would not stand a change.
With the most controverisal articles it is often best to leave them alone and let the war mongers add all the venom they want. That way innocent readers will not be fooled, and will recognice the article for the crap it is, even without a POV or totallydiputed tag. The best hope for this article is, that it will end up in that category. -- Petri Krohn 21:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giving up so soon? There's little controversy outside the minds of valiant occupation-denial warriors like you yelling "Nazi!" here. Would you perhaps care to stop arguing with rhetorical flourishes and explain just how the Katyn massacre, the Holodomor, the secret protocols of the MRP, the mass deportations or any other well-documented crimes against humanity will be read as "crap" by "innocent readers"? Unigolyn 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the crimes themselves, real or alleged, but the judgement the article tries to force upon its readers using suggestive and inflammatory language and even stooping so low as to actually underline the parts of text someone considers important. --Illythr 14:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the -ism:s. Now, the article consistently refers to 'occupation denial', ready to be renamed. Digwuren 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rephrasing, as "about the denial of crimes committed and the fact of soviet occupation". --Alexia Death 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denial of occupation and denial of crimes are different things, dont you think so?--Dojarca 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to do WP:OR, you could classify them separately. However, almost all the sources dealing with the subject I have seen treat the crimes as inseparably flowing from the occupation, and do not make this distinction. Digwuren 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of what? And Nazi-propaganda? I see no Nazi views in this article. Could you substantiate the clams a little more deeply? --Alexia Death 16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First. There is no evidence that the term really exists and if exists, covers all the things mentioned in the article such as Katyn massacre. Katyn massacre as well as "liberation from Judeo-Bolshevist occupants" were the topics havily used by Nazi propaganda. In its essence the article is another revisionist attempt to reconsider the history and outcomes of WWII. The article labels such belief (i.e. denial of Soviet occupation) as denialist which according the denialism article is a belief contrary to the scientifically supported evidence. So the article describes denial of Soviet occupation to be a view contrary to scientific evidence, which is wrong as judical definition of occupation is a military control over foreign territory. The article covers problems already covered in other articles such as Occupation of Baltic States and we do not need another article covering the same topic or a new article yet another time citing Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.--Dojarca 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, Ive already proposed and it has been accepted that the -ism part should be removed as this was result of slightly too literal translation, the occupation denial however is very real thing. Soviet army was in the baltic states until IIRC 95... So occupation is a historic fact. This article is not about that fact. Its about this fact being denied. It does not talk about MRP either. It talks about the fact that the existence of secret protocols was denied for fifty years. As to nazy propaganda, Nazy presence in the Baltic states is also viewed as OCCUPATION and is not a topic of this article.--Alexia Death 17:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No country can occupy its own territory so even if Soviet army units existed in the republics, it cannot be termed occupation. All points of view related the occupation should be covered in the relevant article Occupation of Baltic States. Existence of secret protocols to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact alreadey covered it the relevant article Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and we do not need another article on the same topic.--Dojarca 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A perfect example of the term Soviet occupation denial is a sentence like: "No country can occupy its own territory so even if Soviet army units existed in the republics, it cannot be termed occupation." It is obvious Soviet occupation denial, since all of the three Baltic States were recognised by the Soviet Union as independent states after the Estonian War of Independence, Latvian War of Independence and Lithuanian Wars of Independence. --Philaweb T-C 17:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And ceased being recognized as such after incorporation in the USSR.--Dojarca 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Under Secretary of State in the US Sumner Welles, July 23, 1940 - and more than 50 countries who later followed this position. --Philaweb T-C 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a reliable (i.e. not Estonial nationalist) source that the incorporation of the countries into the USSR was not recognized by such a number of states?--Dojarca 21:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the online sources refer to works of Tunne Kelam or Mart Laar in the end. While the latter is a recognised historian, I feel you would still unreasonably deny his work claiming "unreliability" and "bias", so you will have to do with an offline source:
The Annexation of the Baltic States and Its Effect on the Development of Law Prohibiting Forcible Seizure of Territory by William J. Hough
This is what Kelam refers. Digwuren 21:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a relevant quote from that source?--Dojarca 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you're trying to make one unreasonable "request" after another in hope that in the end, you can present a "failure" to heed such unreasonability as "prevailing" of your occupation denial arguments. However, here's a quote for you, from the conclusion:
Quoted in [8]. If you want more, go to a library yourself, or ask your friendly neighbourhood professor of international law. Digwuren 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out below, I now support renaming article to Denial of Soviet crimes.--Staberinde 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the use of the word “occupation” in reference to, or instead of Estonian SSR or Latvian SSR is in most cases hate speech (or even worse, it is state sponsored hate speech.) This choice of words is motivated by what I would call the “Baltic occupation myth”, and cultivated by what can be called “occupation theorists”. The myth exists for the sole purpose of denying the rights (including citizenship) of Estonia's and Latvia's Russian minorities. (Myth supporters will naturally argue, that no rights were denied, as these people had no rights to begin with.) This myth was created after 1991 and has all the features of a Big Lie. Its central premise is that Latvia and Estonia were occupied territory until 1991.
The use of the word “occupation” is directly related to use of the slur “okupandid” for members Estonia's Russian minority. As a comparison (using the original metaphor for self-determination), one could say that the Estonian Popular Front in 1989 demanded divorce from the Soviet Union. The Congress of Estonia in 1990 demanded annulment of the marriage. Occupation theorists see the whole relationship, up to 1991, as rape. Use of the O-word has the same power as calling the non-citizen Russians rapists.
If this really is a case of hate speech, Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms will not solve the problem. By definition, hate mongers are aware of the fallacy of their arguments. Counterarguments, however well prepared will thus have no effect. We will have endless revert wars and never-ending talk-page battles.
From the talk pages, it will be easy for an outside observer to see, when hate mongers are present. It will however be very difficult to see which side of the argument is hate speech. Hate mongers are not stupid; they may mimic the argumentation of a good-faith editor in every detail. The only way to tell the sides apart, is to “follow the money”; who are the victims that will suffer from the adaption of the lie or half-truth?
(Next we will hear accusations, that Soviet occupation denialists aim to victimize the Baltic people.)
I really do not know what to do with this article. It is valuable in bringing out some of the argumentation of the occupation theorists. As such I do not however believe it as any place in Wikipedia 's article space. All I can do is invite people who share my views, to work together in preparing the counterargument. -- Petri Krohn 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Occupation theorists"? Please refrain from using such inflammatory language if you possibly can. Contrary to your neo-Stalinist fantasy world, the illegal occupation of the Baltic states is an accepted fact in the real one, and it resulted in the well-documented death, deportation or refugee status of a third of my country's population. "Occupation theorist" is as vile a weasel-word as "Holocaust theorist". But thank you for wearing your blatant biases so obviously on your sleeve. Unigolyn 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only this is not original research, but this concept was taught to me and others in all old Soviet history textbooks! Yes, I would tell there is absolutely nothing new and original here.Biophys 02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose "Basis for non-continuity of Baltic states" might be more academic, but based on what's been presented elsewhere so far, this would just become "what Russia says" with no further evidence. Aside from plenty of statements from the Russian press/politicians/authorities that the Baltics are not continuous (ergo, not occupied), there's been no other evidence provided. The classic if enough people say it, it must be true syndrome.
    Of course we would then also need a Basis for continuity of Baltic states. Which might not be a bad thing. Each "side" can state the position and then provide concrete evidence for the position as well as show where the "other" position is in error. Without edit warring. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If one wanted to characterize this as an "anti-Soviet" article, that does not equal "neo-Nazi." Characterizing this article as neo-Nazi and therefore worthy of deletion is a POV assertion; moreover, the reasoning that anti-Soviet = anti-(anti-Nazi) = pro-Nazi/neo-Nazi is in fact the official Russian contention--and so the very request to delete the article in fact proves the necessity for the article's existence. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • denial of the fact that this occupation took place
  • arguing that it should not be called occupation, but rather annexation.
The article states that a "denialism" is the official position of Russian authorities. I would note that it is a "denialism" in the second sense.--Ring0 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with you on the title, recommended Denials of Communist crimes (or Soviet crimes) would be better for this article. This doesn't invalidate the article itself, though. DLX 07:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support Denials of Communist crimes for the title as well. --Lysytalk 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Denial of Communist crimes would be more grammatical.
I also prefer Denial of Soviet crimes over Denial of Communist crimes, as the subject matter deals specifically with USSR, not, say, crimes committed by Pol Pot and his followers. While the latter were also denied, it does not strike me as reasonable to lump these topics together. (In fact, even most sources, including studies, on Communist crimes and their denial, only deal with narrower topics, such as crimes committed and denied by the occupying Soviet Communists in the region of Latvia.) Digwuren 07:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Denial of Soviet crimes is better. DLX 07:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will also support Denial of Soviet crimes over the current title. It's far more neutral. As for "occupation", nobody (almost) denies that Baltic states were incorporated into the USSR against the will of the majority of their population. But calling it "occupation" or "annexation" is a political issue, not historical. So, this controversial term shouldn't be at the title of the article if we're striving for NPOV.--Ring0 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And labeling unpleasant history "rusophobia" and trying to censor it is policy of wikipedia? I thought wiki was striving for neutrality...--Alexia Death 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that because this may provoke anger a part of history should be forgotten and never discussed on WP? So Holocaust should not be discussed because it provokes anger against Neo-Nazy movements? This is absurd!--Alexia Death 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Babel Fish Translation of the above comment added by Deutscher Friedensstifter: "Important article, the Theme has place." --provided by Poeticbent
Nowhere in WP:DELETE#Reasons_for_deletion is there any mention that POV is grounds for deletion. Martintg 10:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What,exactly, are you considering POV there? It seems that everybody, who cry "POV!!!" fail to show what exactly is POV in that reasonably well-cited article. DLX 10:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consequenses of the above is like playing a record backwards - it can be done, but it sounds horrible. The Baltic occupation is quite straight forward compared to the very complex situation of Poland after World War II. If Poland was occupied, then large chunks of Germany was occupied as well (Eastern Prussia, Danzig, Silesia and Pommerania). It sounds like a slippery slope to me to get that issue NPOV. --Philaweb T-C 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Galicia and Bukovina were occupied by the USSR until 1991 as you say, they are obiously remain occupied by Ukraine, dont you think so? As well as parts of Germany are occupied by Poland and Kaliningrad oblast is occupied by Russia whith parts of East Prussia also occupied by Lithuania (as you insist at the end of WWII it was under Soviet occupation, so those lands were annexed to its illegal collaborating regime). This ideology leads us to re-consideration of all European borders established after WWII.--Dojarca 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not all European borders - only those drawn by the hand of Stalin. --Philaweb T-C 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just wanted to hear it, that those who argues for the article here, in fact aim to revise the post-WWII borders established in Europe.--Dojarca 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith, I would say you have either not read or understood the concept of Slippery slope. My point was that this could be the umwillingly consequense, I did not write of anyones intentions. --Philaweb T-C 04:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change any border, you have to follow the Helsinki rules established in 1975, and make the whole process overviewed by OSCE. You can use any arguments you want, even the ones above, but you'll have to convince the other side. Until then, the borders remain unchanged. I thought this was well-known. Personal oppinions are nothing but personal oppinions otherwise. Even if we all in WP would agree, that would be exactly 0% relevant to the world.
If based on the fact that millions of Jews were killed in Eastern Europe during WWII, someone would propose to create another Jewish state there, people would just laugh. But if someone says that because people laugh at this idea, maybe there was no Holocaust, that would be very serious to me, that would be an argument twisted beyond any common sense, that would be seriously mean. If some crazy fanatic says that - whatever, if state officials - that's very worring. We must learn to separate calling historic facts by their names from current international status of a territory or another.
After 1991, Galicia is not an occupied territory. Just as after 2004 (after USA formally ended the occupation), Iraq is not an occupied territory.:Dc76 18:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why it was occupied before 1991 and is not occupied now? Was it returned to Poland? Were Helsinki rules not applicable to the USSR?--Dojarca 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Just for the same reason that Iraq is no longer occupied, and it was NOT restored to Saddam Husein. The sovereinty was returned to the people of Ukraine in 1991, while until 1991 it stayed with the USSR autorities. Former Yugoslavia was the only socialist country in Europe that was never occupied by the Soviets. 2) Helsinki explaines how to conduct yourself in foreign policy, it is not a law by which you get property back! And territory (in the sence of the one over which some hold sovereignty) is by the way not equal to property.:Dc76 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, in your vision all terrritory of Ukraine was occupied, correct?--Dojarca 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I don't know, I never asked myslef. I am under no obligation from God to hold an answer to every question, be it even personal oppinion. I think historians, not me should answer that. What I believe is irrelevant for what goes into public record. Scholarly works and citations from official documents - is and should be the only thing that matters. The case of Galicia and northern Bukovina is more obvious (1939, 1940), as there are tonns of documents and works. For the rest of Ukraine? I for one don't know enough about its history. And as a rule I do not form personal oppinion before knowing at least all the basics. If you know Ukraine's history very well - please share that with me, give me links to WP pages on those subjects, and I would be happy to follow you for improving my general culture. (you are more than welcome to use my talk page for that) :Dc76 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that occupation is the control over foreign territory? So you imply that Galicia and Bukovina were not belonging to the USSR in 1991, yes?--Dojarca 07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When Galicia and northern Bukovina were occupied by the USSR in 1939, resp 1940, they were foreign territories by all standards. The fact that USSR declaratively annexed them did not make the occupation stop. Just as Nazi-occupied and partially annexed Poland in 1939-45 was occupied, not liberated by Germany. If nazi Germany considered Pozan or Torun non-foreign in 1943, it's the problem of nazi Germany's self-induced illusion of reality.:Dc76 10:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why dont you consider they are foreign for Ukraine now?--Dojarca 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bukovina was definitely not "occupied". It was not even "annexed" as the term implies the unilateral action. Bukovina and Bessarabia were ceded to the USSR following the June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum. Only a takeover of a small Hertza region can be called an "occupation" but just the act of the takeover itself and not the entire 50 yr period of the Soviet (and modern Ukrainian) rule of the territory. Otherwise, good luck with creating and maintaining Occupation of Texas (1845 - present) to use a term to designate the entire period that followed the US annexation. --Irpen 11:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to have your own POV. However, it is not what historians say. I don't want to discuss this any longer here, for it is irrelevant. The point here was for everyone to express his/her understanding and present the known to him/her arguments. We are not historians, and should not debate them. You give a perfect example of Soviet occupation denial, but you are just a private person, so it is not a problem. Similarly, there are many (IMO crazy) people who deny Holocaust, and the last thing I wish would be to debate them. I don't want to use any adjective for those that deny Soviet occupation, I leave it to them to call themselves liberators of Europe or whatever they want - it is your conscience that is being stained, and it is your hands that you poor into the blood of millions of inocent victims. I don't want to make it more harder for you than it will be when one day you will realize the heaviness of your words. I am perfectly satisfied that God will judge you, and I don't want to add anything on top of that. So, look, have it your way or whatever way you want. You, not me will eventually "answer" for that. My moral duty was to civilizedly tell you to think twice, and actually I already overdid that. Have a nice day!:Dc76 12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Few can speak for the Lord. I doubt prophets on Wikipedia. --Irpen 12:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noone can speak for the Lord. What I said was my understanding of the literature. Whether you would realize the graveness of your words in the future - maybe I was wrong about that, sorry. I surely hope you would. The last thing I wanted was to sound like a prophet.:Dc76 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and while we're at it, let's create a "Holocaust myth" article, to get the "other side" of that story. The illegality of the Soviet occupation isn't some crackpot theory, it's accepted by every major government and NGO, aside from the self-proclaimed legal successor of the USSR and its few surrounding puppet states. Denial of this commonly accepted fact is both the official policy of the aformentioned legal successor as well as a widespread belief among pro-Kremlin civilians and ideologues in Russia and elsewhere. Erstwhile communist apologista Petri Krohn being one of them. Unigolyn 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While evaluating the legality of most annexations is a pretty futile endeavor, the problem with the article is not that, but it's attack-style POV. Compare with a (recently deleted) List of Muslims involved in a crime to see what I mean. As I said, a total conversion (starting with the name) may make the article useful. Right now, I see no difference from a classic "List of <bad things> done by <people>"-type attack, that is used to imply that all <people> are bad. --Illythr 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet is a regime not a people. The title attacks Russians no more than Nazi crimes attacks Germans. Any association by Russians of themselves with Soviet might and glory and not liking the dark side of "Soviet" is outside the scope of this discussion. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims are not a people either. Nor are Democrats or Republicans. Or Christians. Let's start articles on THEIR crimes and THEIR denial of those, shall we? What I'm trying to say is that making every Soviet soldier who had died freeing the world from Nazism and every Soviet worker who helped rebuild the war-burnt lands responsible for the decision of their government to stay in those freed countries and boss them around instead it pretty low indeed. --Illythr 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the things you have listed are regimes! They are kinds of people. There probebly would be vaild ground for talking of Islamic regimes now and Christian regimes in the past and their crimes eg. Inquisition. Inquisition is not denied by anyone noteworthy so an erticle about denial those crimes is not warranted... It is your personal problem, if you fail to see the difference between condemming the regime and condeming people caught up in it. They clearly are two different things. --Alexia Death 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Illythr, please, do read what Alexia Death has just written. Regimes, Illythr, regemes, not people. Also from your reply: "every Soviet soldier who had died freeing the world from Nazism and every Soviet worker who helped rebuild the war-burnt lands" countries are not "responsible for the decision of their government to stay in those freed" occupied "countries", but those that killed and persecuted the people of those countries which did not like the replacement of one totalitarian regim with another, and those who stole whole factories - are, as employees of the regime. Fighting nazis is not equal to start plundering and killing afterwards. I don't believe that you don't see this as obvious.:Dc76 19:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, isn't Democracy or a Republic a regime as well? I don't see that bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrad, or that US prison camp business listed as "Democracy crimes"... Stole whole factories? Are you talking about war reparations, perchance?
No, not equal. Different things done by different people. That's why I'm voting for deletion of an article that lumps them all together. --Illythr 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, it as your perception that is at fault: you and we agree that the two things are different, but you believe we mean to lump them together. Well, we don't! And I'm surprized that you suggest we would, b/c then you must have thought that we have a hidden nazi agenda. I expected better from you. :Dc76 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bombing of chinese embassy in Belgrad is not a "Democracy crime", but a regretful unintentional incident, by ones, or a test of China's need for USA to be its friend, by others. :-) BTW, democracy is not an extreme regime, as fascism and communism were. US prison camps are POW camps. US has an obligation under Genneva Coonventions to treat the cases of those that do not posses operative information speedy, otherwise it might be liable for material payment for keeping someone imprisoned without due process. It would go to "Cases of US Judiciary System infinging on the liberty of individuals" or something like that, and will cover lots of other cases inside US, including common criminal kept under arest more than deemed allowable by law.:Dc76 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about dismantling tens of factories (e.g in Braşov) years before any treaty detailing payment of war reparations is signed. I mean also things taken extra than in those treaties (only 10% of what was taken was written in treaties). 90% was stolen. :Dc76 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I see are "Soviet invaders", "Soviet crimes" etc. I suppose the word's gained lots of negative connotations due to all the Cold war propaganda (like the word "capitalist" in the Soviet space). Anyhow, my main concern is that "Soviet" or "Communist" describes a group of people united by a single idea, much like Democrats or Christians, and that listing "Soviet crimes" is an attack tactic that may be likewise used on any similar category. Hey, we don't even have a list of Nazi crimes (note the redirect)! I have already seen similar lists "of crimes by <like-minded group>" (Christians, Muslims, Jews...) speedied. I do not see how this one is any different. Thus the delete. PS: Got a source on that 90% in Brasov? --Illythr 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite incorrect. 'Soviet' does not refer to any particular person or a group of persons; it instead refers to a political ideology and a particular regime. There has been only one known Soviet regime in history, unlike, say, with Communism, which is why 'Soviet crimes' is sufficiently identifying while 'Communist crimes' (which *is* actually used in the literature) is not. This uniqueness is, by the way, represented in Soviet redirecting to Soviet Union. Digwuren 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A political ideology that was shared by hundreds of millions (and still is, by quite a lot of people). That particular regime also includes a variety of leaders. Equating Stalin to Gorbachev or Beria to Sakharov (they are all Soviets) is ridiculous. It is unfortunate that the word "Soviet" is associated only with repressions and mass-murder in the "West", in part due to a successful propaganda effort, but also due to the fact that the crimes committed were grievous indeed. Still, I find this attempt at resurrecting the old "Evil Empire" label and applying it to all things Soviet by picking up all the injustices committed during its existence (thus "helping" the reader to make the "right" judgement)... well, wrong.
You're wrong at least about two things. First, being subjugated in a revolution doesn't mean all the millions of people subscribed to the ideology. And second, merely because people sometimes subscribe political ideologies is not referring to the ideologies referring to people. Furthermore, Sakharov was a dissident, certainly not a leader. Finally, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for deletion. A number of sources actually refer to the evil as Communism's crimes against humanity; I replaced it with Soviet crimes for greater neutrality as well as preciser identification of the topic. Digwuren 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but many. "Subjugated"? It would be false to claim that the Bolsheviks were supported by all the population of the Russian Empire, but suggesting that Lenin et al fought the Russian Revolution of 1917 alone is ridiculous. Sakharov was Soviet, just like Gagarin, Sergey Korolyov and many many others. "Soviet" is an adjective that encompasses them all. Just like... American.
I have raised very specific concerns about the article: it is 1) A POV fork and 2) An anti-Soviet attack page (not against a single person, but a roughly lumped together category). Those are my reasons for deletion. That it is also hopelessly POV comes from the definition of the two main problems. In fact, the word "Communist" would be more correct, as there is no such ideology as "Soviet" (that would be Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, and whatever you may call the Gorbachev period). Of course, the deletion would be much faster, had you used that word instead. --Illythr 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even someone in Germany or USSR who actually believed in Nazi or Soviet regime is not automatically criminal. Many Germans were brain washed by Goebbels to believed that all their country did was defending itself from "Asian hordes", and in 1945 were certain there was no Holocaust. But then they realized how far that was from the truth. Blaming today those people is not correct, IMO, because once they saw the evidence, they did not continue to deny. But an official or a historian who today, having all the evidence at his disposal would claim that Holocaust wasn't, that is a mean idiology, the subject of Holocaust denial. The evidence of the crimes of Soviet regime has been around for decades, and many years have passed since the regime is defunct, hence no this is not a case of "victors" rewriting history, as some here try to portray. Denial of something for which there is unquestionable evidence, also freely available, non-censured, during the last 16-18 years, is a regrettable social phenomenon, certainly deserving an article on WP.:Dc76 11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd make that link a redirect to Soviet (disambiguation). Better that way, IMO. --Illythr 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Illythr if your point is that articles titled "List of <bad things> done by <people>" are POV, then I guess all these articles(result of only 5 minute search) need to be renamed/deleted: Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II, Japanese war crimes, Italian war crimes, German war crimes, War crimes of the Wehrmacht, Allied war crimes during World War II and German occupation of Czechoslovakia, I am sure there are more.--Staberinde 08:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
War crimes are a specific category, established by international tribunals, etc. They point out and convict specific perpetrators, by name. No overgeneralization there. I would also rename the "X occupation of Y" or "Y collaboration with BAD_GUYS" articles to something more neutral, like "History of Y (YEAR-YEAR)", as well. Existence of POV in other articles doesn't justify the creation of more POV articles. Again, I would not oppose the creation of a Soviet historiography article dealing with the subject, provided it will be written in a neutral way. It'd still be a POV fork, but not as blatant as this one, at least. --Illythr 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, if your main objection is POV name of article then solution is not deleting but renaming(and that actualy has been proposed by many editors here, simply AfD needs to end firstly). There is no point in deleting article then you can simply move it to better title.--Staberinde 14:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I voiced my objections here (second paragraph). Giving the article a neutral name while dumping the current contents into it, word by word, will achieve nothing. It'll still remain an attack page. Now, starting a new article under that name while adding content in a neutral, non-judgemental way to it might be a way out. It will almost certainly become a heated battlefield, but at least the potential will be there. Perhaps, in a decade or two (or three, or six), when all this hate subsides, someone will come around and do it right. (Yeah, I'm that optimistic about the Wikipedia project). --Illythr 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is only the people who do not bring verifiable facts to the table who are categorizing this as a hate page. "Hate" is a wasted emotion. "Battlefield?" I am not the one hurling invective or labeling people fascists. I am quite content to discuss this all based on facts; however, that approach seems to displease a great number of people here whose empirical goal appears to be wholesale sanctification of the Soviet past. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Illythr is a nice person, but he is seeing hate speech against Russians everywhere, he got an obsession. I believe he is dreaming hate speaches all the nights. Probabily he had some bad personal experiences in his native Moldova. We should treat him with understanding.--MariusM 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it my business, but in this comment you are suggesting the "[use of] someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Please kindly check the policy. Regards, Yury Petrachenko 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your principled stand against use of logical fallacies in discussion. Unfortunately, your judgment is slightly blemished by the fact that you never saw it fit to comment upon repeated suggestions above (and below) to discredit views of a number of people based on their imagined Nazi affiliation. Digwuren 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these people (who are making these suggestions) are mistaken. The type of propaganda used in the article, while originally arising from the Nazi environment, has long since been adopted for the same purpose by many different groups of people.
Marius, your comment is uninformed: Soviets and Russians are two different categories, as you may see many of the supporters of the article state. About the only attack against ethnic Russians (among other Russian-speakers) is the listing of "organised colonisation by hundreds of thousands of Russophones" among the alleged and real crimes of the Soviet government. Still, I believe that this digusting thing is but a collateral of an attempt at piling every imaginable sin upon the Soviets. I think that it is also damaging to the article creators' POV as well, as it dilutes and discredits the significance of real crimes committed by the Soviet regime of the time. --Illythr 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you see propaganda in the article (outside the *subject* of the article, as this very article is about Soviet-centric denialist propaganda), why don't you point it out on the talk page so the article can be improved?
As for the underscores you mentioned above, I was quite perplexed about them, too. I believe they were added into the article by an editor who felt particularly irked off after a quite cheesy exchange on this very deletion proposal page, and I fully support reworking of the particular section in a way that makes the underscores redundant. Digwuren 22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can source "colonization." I have said in Wikipedia and many other places what makes a good citizen of Latvia has nothing to do with their ethnicity. That said, I have no personal or intellectual issue with "piling" everything the Soviets were guilty of at their historic doorstep. Your logic that we should ignore lesser crimes as to not dilute the effect of the really bad ones is like suggesting ignoring that someone was a serial bank robber because he killed someone (a really bad crime). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, I wouldn't mind using 'colonisation' instead of 'occupation'. Unfortunately, as it is, this very article is heavily accused of WP:OR, so sticking to the sources is particularly important -- and the sources almost invariably describe the process as an occupation, of which colonization was only one part. Digwuren 22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for honestly clarifying your stance on the issue, Vecrumba. Now may be the time to review the WP:NOT policy. You may find that Wikipedia is not the place to pile everything the Soviets were guilty of at their historic doorstep. In fact, I wonder what had led you to confuse Wikipedia with the "Soviet historical doorstep" (which would metaphorically mean some kind of tribune) in the first place?
My logic is that labeling the Soviet govt's encouraging Russian-speakers to move to the Baltics (already part of the USSR at the time) to help rebuild them and turn them into the most prosperous Soviet Republics "a crime", while useful to determine the sheer level of POV in the article, is not really helpful even to its supporters. --Illythr 22:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My logic is Russia raped Latvia once when they retreated in WWI, evacuating all heavy industry to Russia and sabotaging what they could not take. Then a little over two decades later, Russia invaded and occupied Latvia again. Since Latvia had been forced to turn primarily agricultural, this time they evacuated all the landowners to Russia, and this time to Siberia. Not to mention what they destroyed as they retreated and then reoccupied. My logic is that had Stalin observed the neutrality of the Baltics, they would not have become pawns (once again), this time between two megalomaniacal genocidal madmen. At a minimum, had Stalin not invaded, he could have eventually been a "liberator." As it is, nothing but a cold blooded invader who had his eye on the Baltics ever since they declared independence. Destroy a country, decimate a people and then, what, declare yourself a beneficent rebuilder when you erect a factory on the ashes of someone's house? Perhaps you have not noticed, Wikipedia is not "USSR Soviet Life Today" (July 1962 talks about Latvia flowering to "undreamed of" potential under the Soviet umbrella: "As soon as Latvia was liberated from fascist occupation, a continuous stream of industrial equipment, raw materials, and fueld poured in. Engineers and workers came from all parts of the Soviet Union..." ). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your repeated attempts to extend the period of Stalinist repressions up to the fall of the Soviet Union inexplicable. Is there something factually incorrect with the last part (starting with "...a continuos stream...")? And you avoided my questions: 1)Which part of Wikipedia looks like a Soviet historical doorstep to you? 2) Precisely how was the encouragement to migrate to the newly acquired territories a crime comparable with mass deportations, repressions, to list it as such? --Illythr 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REINDENTING Illythr, you mischaracterize my position. My position is that the Stalinist story of Soviet history is stated today as if it were fact when it is fiction. As such, anyone who today parrots Stalin's fiction is a Stalinist.
    What is "factually incorrect" in the USSR issue from the point forward you specify? Nothing in this particular instant except that it conveniently omits the need for rebuilding and why there weren't enough engineers: the results of destruction of Latvia's assets and liquidation of its engineers, doctors, lawyers (professional class) by the self-same Soviets. Nor does it mention that the Soviets invaded first = the fiction that the Soviets entered Latvia solely to vanquish fascism = which would be the lie at the beginning of my quote.
    1) Have I suggested blaming the Soviets for any offense they cannot be factually and indisputably shown to have committed? No. The issue is not what facts I lay at which doorstep, the issue is that in attempting to lay documented facts at the indisputably appropriate doorstep, I and all others armed with facts which do not sanctify the Soviet past are called Nazis and Holocaust deniers.
    2) Mass migration is associated with deportations when they are two parts of the same grand Soviet plan. We can call it de-Latvianization if you like, however, historically, Stalin was not the first perpetrator of "Russification" in Latvia--that term had already been coined, so it's perfectly fine to reuse. "Russophonification" is not a real word as far as I know. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can see yourself, that you do exactly the same thing in your crusade? While piling up the facts you conveniently omit that last part, thus feeding the fiction that the only thing the Soviets ever did was raping and pillaging. No, one thing can not justify the other. However, presenting an unbalanced view on only one aspect of the whole is propaganda, as you just pointed out. There is no need to point "Look! Look how evil the Soviets are! They conquer and terrorize!" In Wikipedia, at least, the proper way is "Under such and such Soviet leadership, this and this (objectively) was done on that and that territory." As the crimes committed are grave indeed, there is no point in further underscoring how wrong they were. Those who can see will see, those who choose to selectively ignore parts of their own history will not be swayed anyway.
I will reply to the rest on your talk page. I do not see any reasons for me to continue here. I stated my reasons and explained them the best I can. --Illythr 11:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Pēters J. Vecrumba. While you might find the idea unpalatable, it has been widely reported in literature, and intent to colonise territories of sovereign states' territory was one of the criminal charges against Nazi Germany at the Nuremberg trials, leading into explicitly prohibiting it in the Geneva convention of 1949. There is no reason at all to "tone down" description of events that constitute war crimes merely because it might offend people who feel affiliation to their perpetrators. After all, we don't delete Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles from Wikipedia out of fear that it might offend neo-Nazis. Digwuren 23:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
War crimes? Then it is a simple issue to name the article after the trials that declare them such. List the convicted war criminals, their respective crimes and the punishment they got. --Illythr 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal affiliations with what? I'm from the same country as Illythr, and I guess it would be someone like me, with "Nazi affiliation" (sadly, some - not all - Russians here actually believe Eastern Europeans here to be so) to make "bad personal experiences" :-) for him, as I don't see anyone else around. :-) So, now you force me to "(dis)miss and (dis)credit" :-):-) Dispite we have opposite oppinion as to the effect of this discussion, we've collaborated nicely on many articles, including the Occupation(!), which made me clear he's not denying the fact, but afraid of the effect of existence of "denial of the fact". BTW, there is also a terminology problem here. He is not fearing an attack on ethnical Russians (there are Russians who were in Bessarabia before 1940, and those who came later, and more importantly those who integrate and whose who don't), or any other minority group (which have history from before the Soviet occupation) but rather on what he calls "Soviets" = what Soviets called "multinational composition" = what Moldovans call "moi adres ne dom i ne ulitsa". The problem is the rest of the world calls "Soviets" something completely different - the regime, not the citizens of USSR. (Reagan just spelt it out for everyone to stop fussing about it). A solution could be to put somewhere near the top of the article the definition of "Soviet". The average "ne dom i ne ulitsa" did not shoot or torture anyone, and occasionally there were some very good people among them, which integrated and became "with dom and with ulitsa". :-) Right, Illythr? :Dc76 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a way. :) Still, even with proper differentiation, the page contents will remain an anti-Soviet attack instead of being a neutral assessment of the phenomenon (I'm talking about "Soviet historiography" here) it is supposed to be.
Hey Dc76, do you realize that your posts above and below mine contradict each other? ;-) --Illythr 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If your standard of 'attack page' is 'it points out their crimes', then you're right, and this page is irredeemably an 'attack page'. This is a woefully inadequate test, though. Digwuren 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, shall we stard a list of American crimes? Or undelete the Muslims involved in a crime (Jews, Christians, you name it) again? Such articles will only point out their crimes, after all... --Illythr 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, Illythr belongs to some sort of modern Soviet party? I am not aware of any such parties, but it's the only reason I can think why he might feel personally offended.
As for the song, do you think it is notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia? I checked; there are three different covers of it in my music collection, one of them dating into the 21st century ... Digwuren 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm amazed myself that, being a "Soviet-skeptic" and anti-Communist I am, I'm actually forced to be such a "Soviet apologist" (aka Hardcore Stalinist) on this page and elsewhere in Wikipedia. In fact, it took me Wikipedia to realize, that "anti-Soviet sentiment" is not an invention of Soviet propaganda but a very real phenomenon, with certain people form the former "brotherly Republics" outdoing their Western colleagues by a league at it. The reason is fairly simple: You're basically trying to impose a judgement of a binary nature on a very complex phenomenon. What's worse, you're actually using Wikipedia, a tool that is not supposed to give judgements at all, for it. --Illythr 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrectly asserting that documenting numerous historical, legal and political sources constitutes "imposing judgment", and you're incorrectly insinuating that "anti-Soviet sentiment" means irrational hatred of all things Soviet. Now please stand by while I psychoanalyse your repressed imperial ambitions to death, starting with your dismissal of instances of crimes against humanity as "very complex phenomena" and ending in cigars. :-) Digwuren 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merely documenting doesn't, although avoiding any kind of balance in the presentation of facts, leads an innocent reader to the assumption that there were none, thus forcing a premature judgment in itself. Doing it the way you it's done, providing every Soviet action with malevolent intent and all, makes it only worse. As for the rest, try to keep personal attacks off this page (and preferrably off Wikipedia), will ya? Uh, cigars? :-/ --Illythr 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-I know that only "in a way" "with dom and with ulitsa", but will have to educate. Not the first and and not the last cases in history.
-Where do you see me contradicting myself? Maybe you misunderstood what I meant?
-"Soviet" is not a nice word that "evil capitalists" invented, and "brotherly republics" outdo. It is a term used for more than half a century, having a parallel meaning with Nazism. Being anti-Soviet is similar to being anti-racist, anti-extremist, anti-nazist, anti-fascist, anti-dictatorial, etc., opposite of being anti-semit, anti-rusophil, etc. The "premature judgement" can only be done by sourses. The article's object is not even to state the Soviet occupation and crimes, it will simply referee to other articles where these are discussed. But for those Soviet actions, which are disscussed in other articles, soursed, proved malevolent in sourses, one can give examples of "denial" if there are such. Something like "Denial of Soviets trying to systematically poison the population", or "Denial that all Soviet sivilians were KGB agents" would be erased at once (ovious vandalism). Something like "Denial of Soviets targeting intelligentsa" will be present.
-It is a difficult topic, but it has to be covered. Noone said it will be easy, but then what is easy? Honestlly, I am really-really tired of this discussion, where it takes me 3 minutes only to find an edit. Good night!:Dc76 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes a formely neutral editor... Proof that bad environment makes good people become more like the environment, in this case to hate the "opposite side", IMHO. The fact that an article needs improvement is not a reason to erase it. The issue is not restrictic to Baltic stated, but to the entire Eastern Europe! I am very-very surprised that an editor like Illythr pretends to forget these. Unfortunately, people are weak when it comes to their personal feelings... So, every Chechen should keel Russians, and every member of bin Laden's family - kill Americans... poor world... :Dc76 15:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Is there a point lost in there somewhere? --Illythr 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was trying to say above. --Illythr
Perhaps I just need more coffee this morning, but considering the Soviet Union regularly rewrote its history to suit political expediencies, I fail to see how "grand conspiracy" is not a factual description for the origins of the Soviet description of the actions of the Soviet regime--which we characterize here as the "Soviet position"--and which the Russian Federation administration would certainly appear to have adopted regarding certain aspects of the Soviet past. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Combating propaganda with more propaganda isn't going to help anyone. --Illythr 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I have any of my facts wrong, please feel free to point out and I will correct. You fall into the Petri Krohn trap: if one side is steeped in lies and propaganda, then both sides are steeped in lies and propaganda. Stalin organized the Estonian putsch attempt long before there was a Cold War and while Stalin was still generally admired in the West, when the only "propaganda" machine was Stalin's. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein's suggestion about a "Historiograhy" section in Occupation of Baltic states. If you want to address the more general issue that "the Soviet Union regularly rewrote its history to suit political expediencies", I would have no problem with a suitably neutral article about Soviet historiography or the like, which cited prominent spokespersons for the criticism, cited reliable sources on specific factual points, and fairly presented the opposing viewpoint. Much of what's seen on this talk page, though, isn't a matter of rewriting history (like the Holocaust deniers), but of assessing facts (many of which appear to be undisputed) and reaching judgments about them. Whether there were Soviet troops in the Baltics long after 1945 is a fact. Whether that constituted an illegal occupation, and whether it was an appropriate response to Nazism, are not objective facts; the discussion here reveals that there are differing opinions about the matter. Those differing opinions about specific topics can best be addressed in the articles about those topics. Does deleting this article deprive the reader of any information? I don't see that it does. Deletion loses nothing except a soapbox, which is why several editors supporting deletion have accurately described the article as an attack piece. JamesMLane t c 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, It would deprive the reader of information about an important social and political phenomenon. (Falsification of history is only a small aspect.) The citation in the article (of which there are hundreds) shows how strong the phonomenon can be observed. Likewise for Holocaust denial, some neo-nazis can say the information is presented in Holocaust. I sincerely hope you don't want to delete that. And it doesn't matter if Nazi Germany re-wrote some history. Both are phenomena occuring today, not many years ago. :Dc76 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holocaust denial concerns a specific factual dispute. It is also a generally recognized subject (that is, not just that the Holocaust is a generally recognized subject, but that Holocaust denial is, too). By contrast, what we have in this article is an absolute hodgepodge of things brought together by the author(s) under what amounts to a neologism. A more accurate title for the article would be "List of WW2-related topics that give a colorable basis for criticizing the USSR". So, I repeat, what information would be lost? Specific disputes about who did what or who denied what can be addressed in the appropriate articles. JamesMLane t c 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet historiography would be a good start. In name, at least. --Illythr 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying "Ya, I know it's black, but I don't want it be called black":Dc76 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not live in a black-and-white world. Do you? The concepts of black and white are somewhat more objective than those of good and evil, you see. Especially when talking generalizations. In fact, generalizations such as this are the very essence of propaganda. No wonder so many people are pointing that out. --Illythr 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the present name and composition prevent any balancing possibility, IMO. Trying to balance it would be considered endorsing the denial conspiracy, you see. --Illythr
Things are not on a line, it is multi-dimensional. Balancing means also against presence of links and see also's presenting only part of the story. As well as reasons why so many deny: during Soviet period they were told that before the arrival of Soviet troop in Eastern Europe were just Nazis, that no democratic regimes ever existed before the Nazis, and that everyone who ruled whose countries were bad people, and now (1945) for the first time people in those countries have something in their hands. It was the myth of absense of anything notworthy before the arrival of Soviets that generated the denial. Also the myth of the existence of only two regimes: fascist and communist. Everything that was not communist had to be fascist. MAny Russians still believe that was the case in Eastern Europe in 1945. :Dc76 19:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is where these "Denial of..." articles are worst. Any link or statement attempting to balance the article will be labelled to be "in denial" itself. Just look at the article now: all the quotes are presented in "Listen to the liars spin their lies" style. As for the rest, well, it may have something to do with those countries actively supporting the Axis cause with weapons and manpower, as well as diligently eradicating their Jewish popupations. Care to take a guess at which country was declared "Judenfrei" first? --Illythr 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Estonians made it Judenfrei? Come to your senses, please! Estonians "actively supporting the Axis cause with weapons and manpower"? How about Polish actively supporting the Soviet cause with weapons and manpower in Czechoslovakia in 1968? Do you see any Czech blaming any Pole nowadays? They blame the communist regime of Poland! And the regime of USSR, which was Soviet. Not solders of Red Army. If Nazi crimes is missing, I will definitevely support to start it. Nazi regime in Germany was based on a criminal idiology - fascism.:Dc76 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be yet another generalization. I'm talking about governments here. Same thing with Poland. The government says, the population obeys. Or else. Some like it, some don't. Most just do. The Nazi crimes article is not missing, as you can see. It's there under a NPOV title with a neutral style and content. The parts I read, at least. --Illythr 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A NPOV title is available for Nazi crimes because of the Nuremburg trials. Perhaps you could suggest to the Russian authorities a posthumous trial of Stalin for genocide (since you would not want to dilute that charge with lesser crimes)--there's no statute of limitations on murder. We can then "NPOV" rename the article "Trial of Stalin". —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you wait for such a trial before creating the article on Soviet crimes? --Illythr 22:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: we, those who wish to keep this article, are not Nazis, Russophobes, or hate-mongers. We are interested in truth. We hope Russians themselves will do so, before it is too late for their once-great nation. Biruitorul 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this is the right place to ask, but one question seems not to be answered in this never-ending discussion: What are the primary sources supporting the occupation view? -- Petri Krohn 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I will oppen a new section on the bottom for this discussion, -- or maybe we should take it someplace else.)

Strong keep but clean up a lot. The article is messy right now and needs work, but it describes a very real and notable phenomenon. You cannot delete articles simply because you don't like the phenomenon they describe--that is censorship, pure and simple. After all, we do not live in the Soviet Union.

Im my view, the only Big Fault in the article is its inadequate title. It should be titled either "denial of soviet crimes" or split into articles on "..soviet crime" and "..occupation". In addition, the article could be improved in various ways. Apart from that, none of your claims make sense. You should justify your criticism, not just shout it. The denial of soviet crimes is a real phenomenon which has nothing to do with your or anyone else's mom's basements. But where's the connection with Holocaust? Are you saying that because of Holocaust, we should be silent about Stalinist crimes? See also: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] ... etc Lebatsnok 09:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garret Beaumain 01:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im pretty sure you did not READ the name discussion below. The article was put up for Afd within a day of apprearance, it had no time to develop. There has been consensus since the start that the title is unfortunate and should be changed to "Denial of Soviet Crimes". This has not happened yet because of this AfD. These topics are included in the light of the future title. as to "There never was Molotov-Ribbentrop pact" - i lill go and chek this right away. It should say "There never was any sectret protocols in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact"...--Alexia Death 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this statment, tho factually incorrect even in the context of the later article, had somehow escaped notice. Ive corrected it. Another result for calling an AfD on an immature article.--Alexia Death 09:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename and wait

[edit]

It is somewhat unorthodox, but it is clear that we will not reach consensus in this AfD - votes are going pretty much 50:50 (actually, few more keep's just now), with valid claims on both sides. It is obvious that the article is and will be highly controversial, although no one cannot deny the noteworthiness of the subject - but perhaps AfD in this stage is an overkill.

So, I would like to propose the article to be renamed to Denial of Soviet crimes and give it three months (or, to make things simpler, until 2007-09-01) to evolve, find citations, have its own POV fights and edits. After that, if someone feels that AfD is needed, we can start this discussion again. DLX 08:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this motion.--Alexia Death 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - I support rename. This title would be far more neutral.--Ring0 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think title should be choesen more carefully. Honestly I think that current title is best of all sugestions or it should be changed to something like "Denial of illegal Soviet presence". The problems I see with current suggestions are:
  1. Legal continuity of Baltic states - as I allready said above, the Baltic states are independent entities. And the article has been extended beyond Baltics by now.
    Those extentions (such as Katyn massarce) do not have anything to do with Soviet occupation or its denial.--Dojarca 11:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Basis for non-continuity of Baltic states and Basis for continuity of Baltic states - unnececery narrowing of articles' scope, that will not allow to view oppinions of both sides and will produce list of arguments
  3. Denial of Soviet crimes - This may look as a good title at first, but concider that current article deals with Soviet policies that can't be labeled as crimes (e.g. Soviet Union did not enforce Russification policies in the occupied territories - russification is not a crime it is set of policies wich encourage use of Russian). ---- Xil/talk 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely have a point with 3. - that needs to go from the article. However, the scope of the article has grown larger then just denial of occupation of Baltic States (that would merit only a section in relevant article, Occupation of Baltic States - and partially that topic is present there already) - and WP does not have an article about denial of crimes of Soviet Union. DLX 12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the entry on Russification policies. Digwuren 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that as example, not sure if it had to be removed, my point was that there are other entries in that list that are in fact policies. Which makes me think that maybe Denial of Soviet policies could do (or "Denial of ...something that describes exactly which policy... Soviet policies")---- Xil/talk 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming the article to Denial of Soviet crimes. Digwuren 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's close this and open a WP:RM request for Denial of Soviet crimes instead. --Lysytalk 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with move.--Staberinde 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title Denial of Soviet Crimes is too broad, we would have to include every Soviet crime, then the article would get way too long. I prefer renaming the article title to Soviet Occupation Denial, it is more specific and succinct. Martintg 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a problem with the broad topic as is. If there will be too much information then the article might be split but then spliting it at Occupation vs crimes will create one short and one still very large page... --Alexia Death 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Denial of Soviet crimes would be best for beginning, it can be splitted later if it becomes too big.--Staberinde 08:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "crimes" is inherently problematic. This very title would be POV, as well as under-inclusive (given that some of the issues discussed weren't "crimes"). If the renaming approach is adopted, then something like Soviet occupation controversies would be better. JamesMLane t c 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Israeli-Palestinian history denial. We could rename this article to Russian-Baltic history denial. -- Petri Krohn 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just what are the Baltic nations denying? As in, which facts, not interpretations thereof. The only side actively denying the existence of certain facts is the occupation denial side. Unigolyn 00:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically they are denying the existance of the Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, and the Lithuanian SSR and their participation in Soviet society. -- Petri Krohn 00:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is denying the de facto existence of the Baltic SSRs. What is being denied is that they were legitimate. And, to Dc76's comment below, the Baltics were/are merely the touchstone. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Petri Krohn, that claim about denial of existence of Baltic SSRs is ridiculous. Are you also claiming that those who speak about German occupation of Czechoslovakia are denying existence of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia?--Staberinde 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many times it is necessary to repeat: it is not only about Baltic states!:Dc76 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone protests (with better reason then WP:IDONTLIKEIT), I will move article to Denial of Soviet crimes tomorrow (ie 2007-05-26). DLX 05:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:RM, any potentially controversial moves should be proposed and voted. No way anything wrt to this article can be non-controversial. Attempt to circumvent the vote and change title unilaterally will be promptly reported. --Irpen 06:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any "potential controversy" over the new name of the article. All of the "controversy" so far has been about how this article is evil Nazi propaganda and shouldn't exist at all -- this position, however, is certainly not the consensus. Digwuren 07:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, how about instead of "promptly reporting" you will give us promptly some reasons that aren't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You, same as other delete editors, have failed to come up with a single other reason then the name of the article so far - which most keep editors agree with. DLX 07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polarisation and encampment

[edit]

A number of people are, apparently, taking this deletion proposal as a political issue of "If we delete, the Commies will have won!" versus "If we don't delete, the Nazis will have won!", seem to be aligning with the camps, and ignoring the actual matter. This is most unfortunate.

Can we, please, assess the deletion according to Wikipedia policy, and refrain from getting carried away with imaginary yet extremely fierce reenactment of World War II? Digwuren 09:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt to ban "occupation denial" in Latvia and Estonia is notable. I see it as a government policy to mandate hate speech and some forms of holocaust denial.
I also agree with Wikipedia policy. Hate speech however is not a point-of-view. It is conscious communication of falsehood, and does not merit inclusion under WP:NPOV. -- Petri Krohn 13:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any sources to support your claims of labeling a cited historic fact as hate speech or is this your Original Research? --Alexia Death 14:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also what exactly are you calling falsehood in this article? the facts of occupation and crimes or the fact of denial? Both have been cited numerously...--Alexia Death 14:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of this article is not about hate speech - it is about describing the sentiment of occupied people. I do not deny there are extremists on both sides of the issue, but most of the people that lived through the occupation - or "incorporation" - actually has this sentiment of being occupied. --Philaweb T-C 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're talking about sources, I'm also interested of a source for the idea that considering and rejecting laws makes these laws into official policy. Digwuren 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During the WWII, Europe has been all but wipped out by nazi vs commi antagonism. 99% or europeans are anti-nazi and anti-commi. So, I am appealing to everyone to not regard "the other side" as nazi or commi, but as a party in an academic dispute, and think of him/herself - maybe your own rhetoric would be at heart with Goebbels and Stalin. If you love one of these two people - there is nothing to talk about, if you don't - rethink what you write here, don't identify youself with them.:Dc76 14:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself once again asking Petri Krohn the question, what is it about "anti-Soviet" where "anti-Soviet" seeks to bring illegal and immoral past historic conduct into its proper (and verifiable, not just POV ranting) light, that makes it hate speech? I do not deny Russia the historical Soviet victory over Hitler, driving the Nazis from Soviet territory. However, beyond those boundaries, particularly where the Soviet Union preemptively and illegally invaded and occupied the Baltics, the celebration of that victory does not also require glorification (and apparently rehabilitation, witness Dzherzinsky's bust being restored to the courtyard of the Moscow police) of Soviet despotism. Lack of said glorification of Soviet despotism and genocide (does any one want to defend Kolyma as an innocent farming community?) does not constitute hate speech or neo-Nazism.
    I most sincerely and truthfully fail to understand why, today, pride in Russian culture and achievements—Russian self-worth—requires perpetuating a myth of Soviet greatness.
    Pardon my bluntness, but to me this would be like the Germans needing to glorify Nazism in order to take pride in the German engineering achievement represented by the Autobahn.
    This "polarisation" and "encampment" is not based on both sides interpreting the same facts differently, it is based on one "side" ignoring and denouncing presented facts while failing to produce their evidence in support of their position, instead choosing to resort to blanket accusations of hate speech and neo-Nazism. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltic occupation myth is not an attempt to “bring past historic conduct into its proper and verifiable light”; it is an legal argument for the continuity of the Baltic states and for the “restoration” of independence. The “occupation” is a non sequitur from the argument. Rather, it works the other way around: It takes the legal continuity, and thus the “occupation” as premises and works its way backwards. The way it is constructed, is by selectively picking individual events from history, and presenting them in the most favorable light to achieve a continuous storyline. A popular example of this kind of reasoning is the The Da Vinci Code and its source, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
This presentation may have been a good legal argument in an international court on the status of the Soviet republics. It was however never tested in an international court. (If it ever was used in a national court, it most likely lost to the facts on the ground.) As a historical narrative it is pseudohistory. Not even its academic supporters see it as a attempt to describe history; it is not even historical revisionism. At best it could be described as historical revisionism (negationism), most likely it is national mysticism.
After independence, this legal argument has replaced real history writing, creating the “myth” (or should I say lie). The problem at Wikipedia is that Estonian and Baltic editors have understood this myth to be a true presentation of history. (Or they feel that because as a nation they were victimized, they have the right to revenge by falsification of history.)
What makes this (i.e. use of the word “occupation” outside its very limited historical context) hate speech is the central role of the myth in denying the rights of Baltic Russians. -- Petri Krohn 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you back up this rather fanciful story of thrill, suspense and mystery with any verifiable sources? Digwuren 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could start with this: Professor Uluots, the Estonian Government in Exile and the Continuity of the Republic of Estonia in International Law by et:Lauri Mälksoo (see also quote here.) I would consider this an extremely biased Estonian source. Yet I cannot see the editor arguing that what he describes as an legal argument should be interpreted as historical fact. -- Petri Krohn 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (See also [16])[reply]
And this quote supports your story how, exactly? Digwuren 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lauri Mälksoo does not say that the "occupation" was a fact, He only argues that it is a plausible legal argument.
And why is this important? Because all sources that refer to the "occuption" as fact ultimately base their claim on work by Lauri Mälksoo and his colleagues. -- Petri Krohn 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that Mälksoo's specialty is international law, not history? It is to be expected that he would consider legal rather than historical aspects of whatever he's writing about in publications on international law.
(commented in-line)
The claim of "occupation" is not based on historical research, but on legal wrangling. There are very few facts on the ground (or in archives for that matter) that would support calling the Estonian SSR "occupation". The occupation theory is mortally dependent on the legal interpretation. The main historical support is the small collection of documents of the government in exile (see here), all produced outside Estonia. -- Petri Krohn 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim of Mälksoo being the ultimate source of the idea of legal continuity, that is simply untrue -- and if you were to approach the subject even remotely reasonable, you would understand it. You have participated in Congress of Estonia which clearly explains legal continuity having been issue already in late 1980s (actually earlier, but this is particularly illuminating); yet you're trying to claim that an article from 2005 is a cause of something that happened two decades earlier. Digwuren 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say Mälksoo was the origin of the theory, I said that it originates with the specialists in international law. Mälksoo represents a longer Estonian and expatriate tradition and bases his work on that of others. -- Petri Krohn 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying there is a world wide Estonian conspiracy to propagate what you call the "Baltic occupation myth". This is bordering on racism. The Nazis had similar conspiracy arguments against the Jews. The fact Mälksoo has an Estonian background is of no consequence, he does not publish in a vacuum, all his papers are peer-reviewed by other academics, irrespective of their racial background. Martintg 03:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are, now you bring Baltic Russians to the table. To follow your argument, every problem of the world ultimately resides in the "myth" "created" in Estonia after its independence. I am afraind you fail to see that 170,000,000 people in Eastern Europe were occupied by the Soviet troops for 45 to 50 years. The denial of this fact by state and public officials is the subject of the article. :Dc76 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but, in this case speaking of Latvia because I am more familiar with it: the reality is that nowhere in Russia or the other former "republics" of the Soviet Union do Russians live as well as they do in Latvia. Even Russian military "retired" in Latvia to the apartments they were able to claim (as opposed to going home to no barracks and no pay, the alternative offered by Mother Russia). When the international convention of Russian journalists descended upon Latvia so they could expose Latvian atrocities, even accompanying members of the Duma admitted things were not as had been represented in/by Russia. The myth is that Latvian Russians (and other Baltic Russians) are "oppressed." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are oppressed by denaturalization and disenfranchisement. -- Petri Krohn 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of Russians in Latvia, at least, have chosen to become citizens. After nearly two decades of independence, it is the individual's choice not to seek to assimilate into the civic life of one's homeland. No one is denaturalizing or disenfrancising anyone. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The foregoing argument, about how well-off Russians in Latvia are (or are not), was generated by the presence of this article. That's a confirmation that the article is more tendentious than informative. And, to users Pēters J. Vecrumba and Petri Krohn, I say: I appreciate your having supported my point by conducting this argument here, but, now, please stop. Wikipedia is not the proper forum for such debates. JamesMLane t c 05:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is appropriately referenced. It is only the arguments against its creation and existence (charges of neo-Nazism and hate speech) which are "tenditious." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources?

[edit]

What are the primary sources supporting the occupation view? -- Petri Krohn 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you accept as a primary source? Are you contesting that soviet forces entered into the states in question? Or are you expecting us to provide you with some academic work form an occupied country where resisting the regime brought heavy penalties and freedom of speech was nonexistent? Are these demands really reasonable? Do you expect us to provide you with a piece of paper from that time where the occupying forces leaders admit their actions as occupation? Occupation is not a view. Its a fact, based on undeniable actions, not some piece of paper from that time. Historians of the Free World have studied the materials and have concluded, there was occupation. They have been cited. The denial is also a fact. You are doing it, the cited sources show a whole country doing it... So, please, Tell us what is it that you WANT. --Alexia Death 18:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and look at reference 1. under this very page. It is from 1983, right DURING occupation... --Alexia Death 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. At first it was "hate speech". Then it was "denaturalization and disenfranchisement". Now it is request for primary sources. Does anyone else wonder with what Petri comes up next?
However, Wikipedia does not require primary sources - which is quite understandable, because in many cases it could easily lead to WP:OR. And article in peer-reviewed scientific magazine is highest level of source for Wikipedia (that was about your comment on this article). However, if you want primary sources showing that Russia denies Soviet occupation of Baltics, then article has already sources that qualify as primary - primary source is "the most important primary sources are likely to be documents such as official reports, speeches, pamphlets, posters, or letters by participants, official election returns, and eyewitness accounts (as by a journalist who was there)". We have already in the article:

Russian Federation's foreign minister Sergei Ivanov (Russian: Сергей Иванов), May 7, 2005, in an address to Red Army veterans, reported by RIA Novosti: "Those who speak of USSR occupying the Baltic republics — this is absurd and nonsensical. It is impossible to occupy what already belongs to you."

— http://www.rian.ru/victory/20050507/39947379.html
So, we have a foreign minister who denies occupation of Baltic states. This qualifies as those "speeches" mentioned by primary source article and presumably also eyewitness account. Or are you claiming that Sergei Ivanov did not deny the occupation? DLX 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask for sources for occupation denial, but for the occupation itself. How do we know that the Moon is not made out of cheese? How do we know this "occupation" ever happened. Did these experts in the West just make up the story, or did they have some kind telepathic or remote viewing link to Estonia and Latvia?

So far we have found:

  1. An academic paper on the existence of a legal argument
  2. Documents of the so-called government in exile
  3. A non-binding resolution by the European parliament
  4. Eyewitness accounts that the flag was lowered

-- Petri Krohn 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a step back here, I am genuinely confused by your primary sources request. A primary source is an associated document or written first hand account. There are plenty of primary source Baltic accounts of the occupation written before the war was even over and before the "Cold War" was manufactured (allegedly, according to you) to taint our intellectual sensibilities.
  • Would you take maps of the Latvian S.S.R., Lithuanian S.S.R., and Estonian S.S.R. drawn up and labeled as such while the Baltics were still independent states?
  • Would you take eye-witness accounts of invading Soviet troops setting up their own checkpoints everywhere and taking over all government and communcations facilities?
  • Would you take Stalin saying to the Baltics (forgive me this won't be 100% exact), "as far as Germany is concerned we could occupy you tomorrow"?
You ask for facts, but dismiss anyone who brings any facts to the table as a hate speech-monger. When confronted for facts, you have none, or present personal theories on Cold War dynamics = both sides lied about everything but the West (apparently) more than the Soviets, or grossly misinterpret the facts you do bring to the table (EC "denies" occupation).
    I continue to be puzzled by your blind spot in this area, given your other contributions. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about the occupation itself, but about its denial. The article gives some See also to the pages where the occupation is treated country by country, and should give more such links. The quotation that DLX presented you is an example of what 50% of the sourses of this article should be. The other 50% should be scholarly works that mention the (social) phenomenon (denial). :Dc76 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it's not only about Russia and Russians. There are many Russians (I hope the majority) that do not deny it, as well as many non-Russians that do (which nation doesn't have those?) :Dc76 22:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have not yet agreed on that the occupation existed. How can denying something that does not exist be called "denialism". Should we have an article on Denial of the fact that the Moon is made of cheese? (Well, we have Round Earth denialism.) -- Petri Krohn 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, your point proves the usefulness of the article. "Do not agree occupation exists" can be taken to be "deny occupation exists." At least by focusing on the "denial" aspect, the Russian position has been documented in more detail in the past week than the sum total of information provided by those who have been name-calling over the occupation over the past year. I would call this article progress. For that reason alone, it's noteworthy. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military invasion is a composite event. It involves many, many soldiers -- in this case, hundreds of thousands, perhaps even two millions -- and, in absence of satellite imagery which was not available in WWII yet, the primary conclusion that an occupation is occurring or has occurred can be arrived at by two main ways:
  • A witness of any singular event which is a part of the occupation, such as a tank crossing the border, may generalise the event as one of many taking place all around the territory.
  • Somebody with access to data from many such singular events, such as an intelligence service or a military command centre privy to data from border control points may draw a conclusion that a widespread occupation is going on.
This inherent compositeness is an important reason why international law takes very seriously even slight border infractions.
So, we have two ways of constructing primary sources. Both can be discredited through sophistry. Specifically, eyewitnesses of these singular events could be claimed to be 'unwarranted' to hypothesize a general occupation going on, even if such hypotheses got latter corroborated using data from other eyewitnesses, and data of the intelligence analysts can be claimed to be 'non-primary' on the basis of their never having actually witnessed the tanks in question.
Obviously (as above), neither of these discreditations is logically valid in this context. Digwuren 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following section to the article. The reference clearly shows that the European Union was involved in this denial conspiracy, at least in 1991. -- Petri Krohn 02:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The occupation was also denied by the European Community (now European Union) in August 1991, when it recognized the illegal Supreme Soviets as "the legitimate representatives of the Baltic peoples" [2]

The democratically elected parliaments and governments recognized as legitimate representatives would be from the first independent republics, not of the Baltic S.S.R.'s. The recognition is of the loss of the exercise of Baltic sovereignty over Baltic soil, not of the Soviet Union assuming sovereignty over the Baltic peoples and territories during the period between independences. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have apparently misread that European Journal of International Law article, Petri, there is nothing like what you claim there. As for primary sources, how about presenting some that show that there was no occupation - how else can we know that Moon is not made out of cheese? DLX 03:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baltic states were occupied until their declaration of independence in August 1991. When the occupier state (USSR) lost control, and the countries became independent, not occupied by anyone, the occupation logically has cesed. The new local governments vs governments in exile was simply a question of who is the autority (btw resolved very promptly and in a very civilized way), not if the country is independent or is occupied. Once the independence was restored, the occupation finished. (What people do with that independence, as for example in Moldova or (at least some parts of) Ukraine, is their own right.) USSR occupied the people of these coutries, not took land property from their leaders, as many Soviet citizens were induced to believe by propaganda. If Estonia were a kindom, and the last king would have made Stalin a king - would be different (but even then, only if he does so without a gun to his head). But Stalin was no King of Estonia in legal sense. The exile governments were a representative form of the people, institutions of their states, temporarily occupied by a foreign power. If a minister in exile gets flue or dies, doesn't mean that the status of the country changes. He is just an official, representing a subject of international law (country):Dc76 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The restoration of sovereignty on Baltic soil included the formal dissolution of sovereign powers in exile and investing/returning those in the newly established governments. (Some here have asked me to back this contention by proving which exiled Latvian ruled Latvia while the USSR was really in charge.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<Wiki-time-out>As a past invoker of Wiki-moon-cheese in discourse, I feel obliged at this point to offer the following postulations derived from the principle that no one ever admits to being the keeper of the cheese:
  • Theorem: Cheese is in the eyes of the beholder.
  • Corollary: One's own Limburger never stinks.
</Wiki-time-out> —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that we should have a section listing notable individual deniers. Obviously we have representitives of the Russian government. Can anyone list any notable occupation deniers in the West, apart from Petri ofcourse (who probably wouldn't pass the notability criteria anyway)? Martintg 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. I can't think of others, off the top of my head, but the article on Holodomor has this passage:

<quotation> While the famine was well documented at the time, its reality has been disputed due to ideological reasons, for instance by the Soviet government and its spokespeople (as well as apologists for the Soviet regime), by others due to being deliberately misled by the Soviet government (such as George Bernard Shaw), and, in at least one case, Walter Duranty, for personal gain.

An example of a late-era Holodomor objector is Canadian journalist Douglas Tottle, author of Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (1987). Tottle claims that while there were severe economic hardships in Ukraine, the idea of the Holodomor was fabricated as propaganda by Nazi Germany and William Randolph Hearst to justify a German invasion. Tottle is not a professional historian and his revisionist work did not receive any serious attention in the historiography of the subject. </quotation>

Katyn massacre#Western response is also relevant, though this constitutes a silent coverup rather than outright denial. Digwuren 10:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about denial that Katyn was perpetrated by the Soviets? Any official or public denial of that, occuring in modern times, is IMO part of the topic of this article. :Dc76 11:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, Katyn is not my specialty, and I do not have answer for you right now, or in foreseeable near future.
I do agree that this should be covered, of course. Digwuren 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it covered in Katyn massacre inadequately?--Dojarca 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not list any modern deniers of Soviet Union having been involved in Katyn. This might be inadequate or this might not be; I do not know. Digwuren 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any recent instances. But then, I am not aware of many things. There were still during the last years of USSR, but if they cesed, then, well, it's no longer part of denial phenomenon. It might be mentiond (with reliable sourses, of course) in something like "history of denial", which can be a section.:Dc76 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meat puppetry; Canvassing in Russian Wikipedia (or, Operation “I ask anyone to vote 'for'”)

[edit]

Приглашаю всех проголосовать: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2#.D0.9F.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.B3.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.88.D0.B0.D1.8E_.D0.B2.D1.81.D0.B5.D1.85_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D1.81.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.8C 193.40.5.245 08:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities. C 42/78. condemning "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" and stating that "whereas the Soviet annexias of the three Baltic States still has not been formally recognized by most European States and the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of the Baltic States".
  2. ^ "The Community and its Member States warmly welcome the restoration of the sovereignty and independence of the Baltic States which they lost in 1940. They have consistently regarded the democratically elected parliaments and governments of these states as the legitimate representatives of the Baltic peoples." EC Press Release 81/91 - reprinted in the European Journal of International Law
Also note that this debate is (twice) included on Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board. -- Petri Krohn 12:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literature - Further reading

[edit]

Baltic States Annexation to the Soviet Union - Worldcat search result.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More