USSR Like it or not?

[Yeekim]

If you don't understand why people who destroyed Nazism must be respected, I can't explain it to you.

If one criminal kills another in a gang war, it does not make him a saint.

 

[red_elk]

Destroying Nazism is good, but not if you merely replace it with another repressive regime. You should read Animal Farm: A fairy story, by the man in my sig, if you haven't already.

I read it.
How it's related to respecting people who fought for their country and destroyed Nazism?

In the same time, rights of Russian minorities are discriminated just because they often can't speak local languages. Many of them even don't have citizenship. I'm sure you will justify it as well.

It's not a matter of interpretation. Any interpretation other than that it was an occupation is quite simply wrong. You can call it an incorporation, but it was most definitely not peaceful. You might be able to get away without calling it an invasion, but even that's a stretch. An occupation? It most certainly was.

Look at it this way. During one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars, Russia was threatened by Austria, and abandoned Walachia, and I believe Moldavia to them. The Austrians moved in and set up shop. Now, there was no war, but it was most definitely an occupation, and is recognised as such by every historian. Russia's annexation of the Baltic states was far more aggressive and violent.

Moldavia and Wallachia were not independent. They were territories under Russian protectorate. As Austria were not in war with Russia or Moldavia and Wallachia, it was not occupation either.

In Russian wiki, this was described as <zanyat'> which can be translated as "capture" or "occupy". But English word "occupy" usually translated in Russian as similarly spelling word <occupirovat'>, which means "forcefully capture during a war". Moreover, as I already said, this word always used in anti-Russian propaganda.

It doesn't contain the Baltic or German point of view either. It's a very neutral article, especially for wiki, which is often nationalistic. Look at the discussion page, maybe there's a furore there.

Text of English article perfectly corresponds to Baltic position. Though it supposed to describe all existing points of view on that matter.

 

[Sharwood]

I read it.
How it's related to respecting people who fought for their country and destroyed Nazism?

Quite clearly. Napoleon fought to free the farm from Jones, and when it was attacked later. Does that mean we should respect him? He was, after all, a tyrant.

In the same time, rights of Russian minorities are discriminated just because they often can't speak local languages. Many of them even don't have citizenship. I'm sure you will justify it as well.

You truly do seem intent on painting me as anti-Russian, possibly because you have no argument whatsoever against what I've been saying. I most certainly do not think that such discrimination is justified.

Moldavia and Wallachia were not independent. They were territories under Russian protectorate. As Austria were not in war with Russia or Moldavia and Wallachia, it was not occupation either.

Yes it was. Nazi Germany never declared war on Denmark. Does that mean it wasn't an invasion and occupation.

In Russian wiki, this was described as <zanyat'> which can be translated as "capture" or "occupy". But English word "occupy" usually translated in Russian as similarly spelling word <occupirovat'>, which means "forcefully capture during a war". Moreover, as I already said, this word always used in anti-Russian propaganda.

We're not talking about Russian words, we're talking about English ones. In English, what happened was an occupation. Don't play semantics, especially semantics in another language. And why wouldn't the word be used in propaganda against Russia? It was a freaking occupation.

Text of English article perfectly corresponds to Baltic position. Though it supposed to describe all existing points of view on that matter.

Wikipedia is supposed to describe what actually happened. In this case, the Baltic view, that they were forcibly annexed by the USSR, is the correct view. It's what actually happened. That's why it's there. I daresay Baltic right-wing propaganda goes much further than the article.

 

[red_elk]

Quite clearly. Napoleon fought to free the farm from Jones, and when it was attacked later. Does that mean we should respect him? He was, after all, a tyrant.

Veteran is a tyrant? Should I treat German veterans the same way as Hitler?

Yes it was. Nazi Germany never declared war on Denmark. Does that mean it wasn't an invasion and occupation.

Formal declaration is not necessary:

Nevertheless, in the early morning hours, a few Danish troops engaged the German army, suffering losses of 16 dead and 20 wounded. Germany never gave any official number of losses, but these were probably heavier, with 12 armored cars and several motorcycles and cars destroyed. Four German tanks were damaged and one Heinkel 111 shot down. Two German soldiers were temporarily captured by the Danes during the brief fighting.[1]
As the German demands were communicated, the first German advances had already been made, with forces landing by ferry in Gedser at 04:15 and moving north. German Fallschirmjäger units had made unopposed landings and taken the Storstrøm Bridge as well as the fortress of Masnedø.[1]
At 04:20 local time, 1,000 German infantrymen landed in Copenhagen harbor from the minelayer Hansestadt Danzig, quickly capturing the Danish garrison at the Citadel without encountering resistance. From the harbor, the Germans moved towards Amalienborg Palace to capture the Danish royalty. By the time the invasion forces arrived at the king's residence, the King's Royal Guard had been alerted and other reinforcements were in their way to the palace. The first German attack on Amalienborg was repulsed, giving Christian X and his ministers time to confer with the Danish Army chief General Prior. As the discussions were ongoing, several formations of Heinkel 111 and Dornier 17 bombers roared over the city dropping leaflets. Faced with the explicit threat of the Luftwaffe bombing the civilian population of Copenhagen, and only General Prior in favour of continuing to fight, the Danish government capitulated in exchange for retaining political independence in domestic matters.[1]
At 05:45, two squadrons of German Me 110s attacked Værløse airfield on Zealand and wiped out the Danish Army Air Service by strafing. Despite Danish anti-aircraft fire, the German fighters destroyed 11 Danish aircraft and seriously damaged another 14.[1]

I'd say this is a war.

We're not talking about Russian words, we're talking about English ones. In English, what happened was an occupation. Don't play semantics, especially semantics in another language. And why wouldn't the word be used in propaganda against Russia? It was a freaking occupation.

I was talking about Moldavia and Wallachia - even in Russian wiki Austrian actions were not interpreted as occupation. And it was not.

Wikipedia is supposed to describe what actually happened. In this case, the Baltic view, that they were forcibly annexed by the USSR, is the correct view. It's what actually happened. That's why it's there. I daresay Baltic right-wing propaganda goes much further than the article.

You may repeat it 100 times, it won't become true. At least until it will be officially recognized as occupation by international community. So far it's just your personal opinion.

 

[amadeus]

You may repeat it 100 times, it won't become true. At least until it will be officially recognized as occupation by international community. So far it's just your personal opinion.

Presuming you are still talking about the Baltics, the U.S. never recognized the Soviet tyrannization of that territory.

 

[red_elk]

Presuming you are still talking about the Baltics, the U.S. never recognized the Soviet tyrannization of that territory.

USSR defined its post-war borders on Yalta and Postdam conferences, and USA recognized it. Thus Baltic states was officially recognized as part of the USSR.

 

[Sharwood]

Veteran is a tyrant? Should I treat German veterans the same way as Hitler?

Where did I say anything about veterans? I was referring to your claim that anyone who helped defeat Nazi Germany should be respected. Stalin, Tito, and various other unsavoury types contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Should we respect them? Yeekim's analogy was fantastic.

Formal declaration is not necessary:

I'd say this is a war.

You kind of just proved my point for me. There was armed resistance in Estonia to the Russian invasion, and partisan action for years afterwards.

I was talking about Moldavia and Wallachia - even in Russian wiki Austrian actions were not interpreted as occupation. And it was not.

It was an occupation. By forcing Russia to leave by threatening war, then taking over the territories for themselves, Austria occupied them.

You may repeat it 100 times, it won't become true. At least until it will be officially recognized as occupation by international community. So far it's just your personal opinion.

Funny, that seems to be what you're doing. The Soviet invasion and occupation of the Baltic states was recognised as such at the time, and later. As amadeus said, the US never recognised the Baltic states as part of Soviet territory, while paradoxically recognising the area as under Soviet administration. In the same way that many states recognise Palestine as under Israeli administration, but not as part of Israel.

And it's not personal opinion. It's historical fact. That's like claiming that saying Julius Caesar was murdered is an opinion.

 

[red_elk]

Where did I say anything about veterans? I was referring to your claim that anyone who helped defeat Nazi Germany should be respected. Stalin, Tito, and various other unsavoury types contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Should we respect them? Yeekim's analogy was fantastic.

Originally I said to Yeekim that discrimination of Soviet veterans and calling them "occupants" is inacceptable. You replied with Stalin, Tito and Napoleon.
EDIT: (I know who Napoleon was in your case)

You kind of just proved my point for me. There was armed resistance in Estonia to the Russian invasion, and partisan action for years afterwards.

In 1940 there was no war between Estonia and USSR. Unlike Germany and Denmark.

It was an occupation. By forcing Russia to leave by threatening war, then taking over the territories for themselves, Austria occupied them.

Those territories were not even Russian
To consider Moldavia and Wallachia as occupied countries, they must be existing as independent countries-victims. And only if Austria started a war against them and invaded them.

Funny, that seems to be what you're doing. The Soviet invasion and occupation of the Baltic states was recognised as such at the time, and later.

Who recognized it? UN, Potsdam conference, Yalta conference? May be Nuremberg trial? Which international instance?

As amadeus said, the US never recognised the Baltic states as part of Soviet territory, while paradoxically recognising the area as under Soviet administration. In the same way that many states recognise Palestine as under Israeli administration, but not as part of Israel.

And it's not personal opinion. It's historical fact. That's like claiming that saying Julius Caesar was murdered is an opinion.

If you want to claim this was an occupation, it's your responsibility to prove it. Now, it's your opinion backed by claim that absolute majority of Russian historians are nationalists.

 

[Gary Childress]

I've heard that many "communists" don't even like the USSR. See Alexander Berkman's "The Russian Tragedy".

My understanding is that the country was about as "communist" as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "democratic". In other words communism as an ideal had a good name up until the establishment of the USSR.

Just as "democracy" has a good name. The fact that the USSR called itself "communist" is no more indicative of the failure of communism than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is indicative of the failure of democracy. At least that's an argument I saw advanced by Noam Chomsky.

So whether or not communism "failed" is perhaps sort of like saying the Great Depression or todays current mess prove the failures of capitalism.

 

[red_elk]

I've heard that many "communists" don't even like the USSR. See Alexander Berkman's "The Russian Tragedy".

My understanding is that the country was about as "communist" as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "democratic". In other words communism as an ideal had a good name up until the establishment of the USSR.

Just as "democracy" has a good name. The fact that the USSR called itself "communist" is no more indicative of the failure of communism than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is indicative of the failure of democracy. At least that's an argument I saw advanced by Noam Chomsky.

So whether or not communism "failed" is perhaps sort of like saying the Great Depression or todays current mess prove the failures of capitalism.

Right, just a small correction: Leaders of a country and CPSU didn't call USSR "communist", it was "socialistic" country, and ideological goal was to build communism there. Thus, communists were people who built communism in USSR.

 

[Sharwood]

Originally I said to Yeekim that discrimination of Soviet veterans and calling them "occupants" is inacceptable. You replied with Stalin, Tito and Napoleon.
EDIT: (I know who Napoleon was in your case)

You stated: "If you don't understand why people who destroyed Nazism must be respected, I can't explain it to you." I responded, as did Yeekim, by pointing out how foolish that particular argument is. I have no problem with veterans, and as he didn't respond to that part of your quote, it would appear that Yeekim doesn't either.

In 1940 there was no war between Estonia and USSR. Unlike Germany and Denmark.

There was a forcable acceptance of military bases and troops, a blockade, then finally an invasion, followed by a coup and political crackdown. That's an undeclared war, though a one-sided one. And there was plenty of resistance in Estonia: you've been arguing with Yeekim over how Estonians defending their country from Russian aggression were traitors.

Those territories were not even Russian
To consider Moldavia and Wallachia as occupied countries, they must be existing as independent countries-victims.

They were part of Russia's sphere of influence, essentially puppet-states, despite I think officially remaining under Turkish suzerainty(sp?). And they most certainly do not need to be independent countries prior to being taken over to be considered occupied territories. Unless you don't think Germany occupied Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-German war, America occupied many Pacific Islands after WWII, etc.

Who recognized it? UN, Potsdam conference, Yalta conference? May be Nuremberg trial? Which international instance?

The US never officially recognised the USSR's control over the Baltic states. Nor did Britain, despite being a Russian ally longer than the US, and more desperate and willing to give into Soviet demands. Not sure about France. The fact is that the Baltic states were recognised as part of the USSR, but their incorporation was never recognised as legitimate. It was known from the beginning, when the Russians stupidly released the outcome of the vote 24 hours early, that it was an illegal occupation. There were Baltic ambassadors in the US until 1991 protesting the occupation.

If you want to claim this was an occupation, it's your responsibility to prove it. Now, it's your opinion backed by claim that absolute majority of Russian historians are nationalists.

I have proved it, several times. You are merely refusing to accept the proof which has been placed in front of your face, claiming it to be "Baltic official history." Do you honestly think that Russian history is honest on this point? Your country still blames local protests on Western agitators.

And the simple majority of most countries' historians are nationalists; not an absolute majority. But it is the nationalists who tend to get published.

 

[red_elk]

You stated: "If you don't understand why people who destroyed Nazism must be respected, I can't explain it to you." I responded, as did Yeekim, by pointing out how foolish that particular argument is. I have no problem with veterans, and as he didn't respond to that part of your quote, it would appear that Yeekim doesn't either.

Ok. Let's find what discussion was about.
red_elk: But the main problem is that term is widely used in anti-Russian propaganda, often in outrageous manner. For example, calling Soviet veterans "occupants".
Yeekim: What is so outrageous about that? I can call them "incorporators", if that's what you'd prefer.
red_elk: If you don't understand why people who destroyed Nazism must be respected, I can't explain it to you. Will you openly call veteran, wearing for example, this or this, occupant? If yes, I'm wasting my time.

It's clearly visible that I'm talking about veterans. You took citation out of context and started criticizing it.

There was a forcable acceptance of military bases and troops, a blockade, then finally an invasion, followed by a coup and political crackdown. That's an undeclared war, though a one-sided one. And there was plenty of resistance in Estonia: you've been arguing with Yeekim over how Estonians defending their country from Russian aggression were traitors.

Estonian Nazi collaborators were traitors.

They were part of Russia's sphere of influence, essentially puppet-states, despite I think officially remaining under Turkish suzerainty(sp?). And they most certainly do not need to be independent countries prior to being taken over to be considered occupied territories. Unless you don't think Germany occupied Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-German war, America occupied many Pacific Islands after WWII, etc.

If Germany was at war with France and captured part of its territory, I'm ok with calling it occupation. Sphere of influence doesn't mean that territory belongs to that country.

The US never officially recognised the USSR's control over the Baltic states. Nor did Britain, despite being a Russian ally longer than the US, and more desperate and willing to give into Soviet demands. Not sure about France. The fact is that the Baltic states were recognised as part of the USSR, but their incorporation was never recognised as legitimate. It was known from the beginning, when the Russians stupidly released the outcome of the vote 24 hours early, that it was an illegal occupation. There were Baltic ambassadors in the US until 1991 protesting the occupation.

Which international instance recognized it? Is there UN resolution?

I have proved it, several times. You are merely refusing to accept the proof which has been placed in front of your face, claiming it to be "Baltic official history." Do you honestly think that Russian history is honest on this point? Your country still blames local protests on Western agitators.

And the simple majority of most countries' historians are nationalists; not an absolute majority. But it is the nationalists who tend to get published.

Official statements are often part of propaganda - in Russia, USA, Britain or Baltic. I honestly think that all Russian historians cannot be nationalists, and the fact that they don't recognize this "occupation" means at least their opinion must be taken into account.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I really can't see how you can argue that any of the Baltic states wanted to join the USSR. Why would anyone?

The fact that they were unable to protest because of the presence of huge numbers of Soviet troops and NKVD in the country doesn't mean that they all wanted to rejoin the Russian empire.

Do you believe that Finland wanted to join the USSR as well? Because I am absolutely certain that if they had been as defenceless as those other states had been you would be sitting here defending the Russian seizure of their country as well.

 

[red_elk]

I really can't see how you can argue that any of the Baltic states wanted to join the USSR. Why would anyone?

The fact that they were unable to protest because of the presence of huge numbers of Soviet troops and NKVD in the country doesn't mean that they all wanted to rejoin the Russian empire.

Do you believe that Finland wanted to join the USSR as well? Because I am absolutely certain that if they had been as defenceless as those other states had been you would be sitting here defending the Russian seizure of their country as well.

Read the discussion.
I'm neither justifying actions of USSR and Stalin (for Finland, Baltic and Poland case), nor claiming that they joined voluntarily.

In Poland case, it was aggression and occupation (USSR de-facto declared war on Poland), somewhat justifiable morally, as USSR only recaptured territories, invaded by Poland in 1920.

Finland - also occupation, without justification. Stalin did it for pragmatical reasons, as captured lands were needed for Leningrad security. Attack of Finland to USSR in 1941 was aggression as well.

Baltic countries joined not voluntarily, but peacefully. Moreover significant part of population (though not majority) supported it. The argument is about can it be classified as "occupation" from formal point of view. In my opinion, as well as absolute majority, if not all, of Russian historians - it's incorrect term.

 

[lovett]

What do you think an occupation is? Would you also object to 'annexation'?

 

[red_elk]

What do you think an occupation is? Would you also object to 'annexation'?

Occupation is temporary capturing territory of country-victim by army of hostile country during a war.

Annexation is forceful one-sided incorporation of one country (or its part) to another.

I'd prefer to use term "incorporation", as it is neutral and nobody denies that incorporation took place.

 

[Yeekim]

In my opinion, as well as absolute majority, if not all, of Russian historians - it's incorrect term.

In this case, that is pretty much like arguing whether a certain act is best described as robbery or burglary.

 

[Sharwood]

Ok. Let's find what discussion was about.
red_elk: But the main problem is that term is widely used in anti-Russian propaganda, often in outrageous manner. For example, calling Soviet veterans "occupants".
Yeekim: What is so outrageous about that? I can call them "incorporators", if that's what you'd prefer.
red_elk: If you don't understand why people who destroyed Nazism must be respected, I can't explain it to you. Will you openly call veteran, wearing for example, this or this, occupant? If yes, I'm wasting my time.

It's clearly visible that I'm talking about veterans. You took citation out of context and started criticizing it.

Yes, you were talking about veterans. But the first sentence of that final quote does not specify just veterans, it specifies "people who destroyed Nazism." There were plenty of people who helped destroy Nazism that are not even close to worthy of respect. Hell, there's a good chance that many of those veterans committed war crimes themselves, but I'm not going there.

Estonian Nazi collaborators were traitors.

No. Estonians who collaborated with the Nazis in fighting and administering their own country, Estonia, are traitors. Those who collaborated to fight Russian aggression are not. The same with Estonians collaborating with Russia.

If Germany was at war with France and captured part of its territory, I'm ok with calling it occupation. Sphere of influence doesn't mean that territory belongs to that country.

It can, quite easily. Would you deny that Russia controlled the Crimea decades before its official annexation? And as I've stated before, there was quite clearly a state of undeclared war between the USSR and the Baltic states. Simply because the governments didn't declare a state of war for their own and their people's survival, does not mean that fighting never took place, or that it was not a war. By that logic, Vietnam was not a war.

Which international instance recognized it? Is there UN resolution?

And why are you so caught up on international recognition? I have never once claimed that the UN recognised the invasion and occupation as illegitimate. After all, Russia is on the Security Council, it would never allow such a resolution to pass even if it were put forward. I stated the the US and Britain recognised the invasion as illegitimate, and that no-one, except probably other Communist states, recognised the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR as legitimate.

I'm not the one trying to prove a negative, you are, so if you want to give the claim of international legitimacy to the occupation, it is up to you to provide evidence of a UN resolution recognising such, not me to find one not recognising it.

Official statements are often part of propaganda - in Russia, USA, Britain or Baltic. I honestly think that all Russian historians cannot be nationalists, and the fact that they don't recognize this "occupation" means at least their opinion must be taken into account.

Yeah, official statements are usually part of propaganda. But what possible reason would Britain have to lie about Soviet actions in the Baltic? What could possibly be in it for them? They're not a former-Warsaw Pact nation, they have no reason to hate Russia, and actually have many reasons to seek far more positive relations with a country that supplies them with oil and natural gas.

And where did I say that all Russian historians are nationalists? Does every single Russian historian agree on this point? All of them? Each and every single one? I sincerely doubt that. Now, every one that gets regularly published in Russia, that I can believe, because every single book on Australia-Japan relations published in this country, outside of university presses, doesn't even mention the whaling issue, or the war crimes committed by both sides in WWII.

And I've taken their opinions into account. And discarded them as factually deficient and biased.

Read the discussion.
I'm neither justifying actions of USSR and Stalin (for Finland, Baltic and Poland case), nor claiming that they joined voluntarily.

Yet you claim they joined peacefully? The peace of the gun?

In Poland case, it was aggression and occupation (USSR de-facto declared war on Poland), somewhat justifiable morally, as USSR only recaptured territories, invaded by Poland in 1920.

you can make that argument, though it's a slippery slope, since Russia had taken that territory from Poland first, and had a treaty with Poland when it attacked.

Finland - also occupation, without justification. Stalin did it for pragmatical reasons, as captured lands were needed for Leningrad security. Attack of Finland to USSR in 1941 was aggression as well.

A fallacy. Those territories were not needed for the security of Leningrad, except in the case of aggression from Finland. And there would not have been any Finnish aggression were it not for the Soviet Union's unprovoked attack on Finland.

Also, you are aware that Stalin attacked Finland first in 1941 also, are you not? Finland was doing its damnedest to stay out of the war between Germany and Russia. Finland also refused German demands to take Leningrad nd cut the Murmansk railroad, as they had no designs on any territories other than those taken from them by Russia in the Winter War.

Baltic countries joined not voluntarily, but peacefully. Moreover significant part of population (though not majority) supported it. The argument is about can it be classified as "occupation" from formal point of view. In my opinion, as well as absolute majority, if not all, of Russian historians - it's incorrect term.

That argument is a total, utter crock. There is nothing peaceful about pointing a gun to a woman's head and 'inviting' her to have sex with you. Which is what the USSR did, on a national scale. They coerced the Baltic states to allow troops into their countries, amassed an invasion force on the border, blockaded their ports, violated their airspace, and issued an ultimatum while marching their troops towards the border. The Baltics had no choice but to accept.

And their government was still toppled in a coup, instigated by Russia, elections rigged, and dissidents rounded up and either executed or sent to Siberia. If that's not an invasion, occupation and later annexation, I don't know what is. It's one of the most clear-cut cases of pre-meditated annexation in history.

Occupation is temporary capturing territory of country-victim by army of hostile country during a war.

Occupation need not be temporary, nor take place during a war. Australia occupied East Timor in WWII, despite its neutrality. The US occupied many Indian territories without fighting for them, as did Britain in Australia and New Zealand.

Annexation is forceful one-sided incorporation of one country (or its part) to another.

Which is exactly what happened to the Baltic states.

I'd prefer to use term "incorporation", as it is neutral and nobody denies that incorporation took place.

Incorporation happened. Via invasion, occupation and annexation.

In this case, that is pretty much like arguing whether a certain act is best described as robbery or burglary.

It is easy to tell when one does notahve any reasonable argument: they fall back on semantics, and in red_elk's case, semantics from another language.

EDIT: I have no idea why that beaker is there, I must have bumped it, and can't get rid of it.

 

[red_elk]

Yes, you were talking about veterans. But the first sentence of that final quote does not specify just veterans, it specifies "people who destroyed Nazism." There were plenty of people who helped destroy Nazism that are not even close to worthy of respect. Hell, there's a good chance that many of those veterans committed war crimes themselves, but I'm not going there.

I already said that I meant veterans in that phrase. And didn't specify it only because discussion was about them and I didn't think somebody will get this phrase out of context and start disproving it. What you will do next time? Take two random words from my messages and disprove them?

No. Estonians who collaborated with the Nazis in fighting and administering their own country, Estonia, are traitors. Those who collaborated to fight Russian aggression are not. The same with Estonians collaborating with Russia.

Administering country under Nazi rule meant killing Jews, hunting down Russian partisans and burning villages in Belorussia. The same people were fighting Russian "aggression". They were traitors if not to say worse.

It can, quite easily. Would you deny that Russia controlled the Crimea decades before its official annexation? And as I've stated before, there was quite clearly a state of undeclared war between the USSR and the Baltic states. Simply because the governments didn't declare a state of war for their own and their people's survival, does not mean that fighting never took place, or that it was not a war. By that logic, Vietnam was not a war.

Read here:

Baltic governments surrendered in 1940 and the following annexations were indeed "peaceful" (i.e. no armed resistance on meaningful scale was met). "Peaceful" not to be confused with "willing", "legal", or "without immediately following civilian casualties" here, however.

And why are you so caught up on international recognition? I have never once claimed that the UN recognised the invasion and occupation as illegitimate. After all, Russia is on the Security Council, it would never allow such a resolution to pass even if it were put forward. I stated the the US and Britain recognised the invasion as illegitimate, and that no-one, except probably other Communist states, recognised the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR as legitimate.

We have no other legitimate sources, to define this. US and Britain recognized that it was occupation, Russia don't. BTW, Communist states also have the same rights as USA and Britain.

I'm not the one trying to prove a negative, you are, so if you want to give the claim of international legitimacy to the occupation, it is up to you to provide evidence of a UN resolution recognising such, not me to find one not recognising it.

About occupation - you must prove it was.

About how lawful Baltic was part of the USSR:
Helsinki act, 1975.
Declared inviolability of frontiers and territorial integrity of all signature states.
All of them, including USA and Britain recognized USSR in its borders of 1975.

Yeah, official statements are usually part of propaganda. But what possible reason would Britain have to lie about Soviet actions in the Baltic? What could possibly be in it for them? They're not a former-Warsaw Pact nation, they have no reason to hate Russia, and actually have many reasons to seek far more positive relations with a country that supplies them with oil and natural gas.

USA and Britain were main Cold War opponents of USSR. Most of anti-Soviet rhetorics was originated in USA, its allies and satellites. For present time it become less but didn't stop, unfortunately. Just read and compare for example, British and American press, with France, German and Italy - what they write about Russia.

And where did I say that all Russian historians are nationalists? Does every single Russian historian agree on this point? All of them? Each and every single one? I sincerely doubt that. Now, every one that gets regularly published in Russia, that I can believe, because every single book on Australia-Japan relations published in this country, outside of university presses, doesn't even mention the whaling issue, or the war crimes committed by both sides in WWII.

And I've taken their opinions into account. And discarded them as factually deficient and biased.

May be not all. If I say 99%, will something change?

Yet you claim they joined peacefully? The peace of the gun?

Read above. Even Yeekim agree with that.

you can make that argument, though it's a slippery slope, since Russia had taken that territory from Poland first, and had a treaty with Poland when it attacked.

Which does not justify Polish aggression.

A fallacy. Those territories were not needed for the security of Leningrad, except in the case of aggression from Finland. And there would not have been any Finnish aggression were it not for the Soviet Union's unprovoked attack on Finland.

Very important "except". Who could guarantee Germans will not attack from Finnish territory?

Also, you are aware that Stalin attacked Finland first in 1941 also, are you not? Finland was doing its damnedest to stay out of the war between Germany and Russia. Finland also refused German demands to take Leningrad nd cut the Murmansk railroad, as they had no designs on any territories other than those taken from them by Russia in the Winter War.

They moved further their previous territories and took part in blockade of Leningrad. They are responsible for death of hundreds thousands of Leningrad civilians.

That argument is a total, utter crock. There is nothing peaceful about pointing a gun to a woman's head and 'inviting' her to have sex with you.

Absolutely agree. Comparison with raped woman is very effective propaganda tool.

Which is what the USSR did, on a national scale. They coerced the Baltic states to allow troops into their countries, amassed an invasion force on the border, blockaded their ports, violated their airspace, and issued an ultimatum while marching their troops towards the border. The Baltics had no choice but to accept.

And there was no war or resistance.

And their government was still toppled in a coup, instigated by Russia, elections rigged, and dissidents rounded up and either executed or sent to Siberia. If that's not an invasion, occupation and later annexation, I don't know what is. It's one of the most clear-cut cases of pre-meditated annexation in history.

What about pro-Soviet demonstrations with thousands of people?

Occupation need not be temporary, nor take place during a war. Australia occupied East Timor in WWII, despite its neutrality. The US occupied many Indian territories without fighting for them, as did Britain in Australia and New Zealand.

So, it's unlawful that Indian territories now are part of USA?

Which is exactly what happened to the Baltic states.
Incorporation happened. Via invasion, occupation and annexation.

Annexation differs from occupation. It cannot be both.

It is easy to tell when one does notahve any reasonable argument: they fall back on semantics, and in red_elk's case, semantics from another language.

I used Russian semantics only for Moldavia and Wallachia case. To describe it's not called as occupation in Russian wiki. You know that, but continue to blame. Why?

 

[Sharwood]

I already said that I meant veterans in that phrase. And didn't specify it only because discussion was about them and I didn't think somebody will get this phrase out of context and start disproving it. What you will do next time? Take two random words from my messages and disprove them?

You were speaking about the veterans, but your comment could easily be construed as stating that all those who opposed Nazi Germany deserved respect. Since Yeekim picked on that part as well, I think it's fairly obvious you expressed yourself poorly in that instance, if that was not your intent.

Administering country under Nazi rule meant killing Jews, hunting down Russian partisans and burning villages in Belorussia. The same people were fighting Russian "aggression". They were traitors if not to say worse.

Yes, people who did that are traitors and war-criminals, and I said so. But those who did not assist in such actions, who merely fought the Russians, they are not traitors, they are patriots, resistance fighters.

Read here:

As I've already said, it's the peace of the gun. That's why I use the rape analogy, because it's fantastically accurate. It's emotive, yes, but it's also true.

We have no other legitimate sources, to define this. US and Britain recognized that it was occupation, Russia don't. BTW, Communist states also have the same rights as USA and Britain.

never said that they didn't. But if the US coerced Australia into allowing troops to be stationed there, then blockaded the country while amassing troops on the border, routinely violated its airspace, accused it of collaboration with their enemies (falsely) then delivered an ultimatum and marched its troops across the border, would you accept it as legitimate and peaceful. Of course not, no-one reasonably could. And that is what happened to the Baltic states. So anyone who recognised such actions as legitimate were doing so for political reasons, and they are wrong.

About occupation - you must prove it was.

And have, several times.

About how lawful Baltic was part of the USSR:
Helsinki act, 1975.
Declared inviolability of frontiers and territorial integrity of all signature states.
All of them, including USA and Britain recognized USSR in its borders of 1975.

Yes, and many states recognise Israel's rule over Palestine, without recognising it as part of Israel. I've made this quite clear: recognising that the Baltics were part of the USSR is not the same as recognising the legitimacy of their incorporation into that nation. Australia did the same thing vis a vis East Timor and Indonesia. East Timor was obviously part of Indonesia after 20 years of occupation, but that did not mean that the means of incorporation was legal or acceptable.

USA and Britain were main Cold War opponents of USSR. Most of anti-Soviet rhetorics was originated in USA, its allies and satellites. For present time it become less but didn't stop, unfortunately. Just read and compare for example, British and American press, with France, German and Italy - what they write about Russia.

No crap. But I think you'll find that the academic communities in Britain and America were actually quite a bit more balanced than the politicians. In many cases they were Socialists, Communists, and even Marxist-Leninists. Most Australian academics in the '60s and '70s supported the Soviet Union almost without question, because they were a socialist paradise . Negative characterisations from historians were rare, and have pretty much stopped completely now. you're more likely to get an anti-American viewpoint in a British text than an anti-Russian one.

May be not all. If I say 99%, will something change?

.
No, I was merely pointing out that you were incorrect in saying that I believed all Russian historians were nationalists. Don't portray me as a bigot

Read above. Even Yeekim agree with that.

The peace of the gun. Ask Yeekim, I guarantee he will agree with that.

Which does not justify Polish aggression.

No it does not.

Very important "except". Who could guarantee Germans will not attack from Finnish territory?

The Finns? They only let the Germans in after you attacked them. If Finland had not been attacked by the USSR, it would have had no reason to attack the USSR later, in which case it would have had no reason to allow German troops into Finland. If anything, Leningrad's security would have been tighter, as the Germans would have had to fight their way through Finland to get there, and you would have found them a useful ally against the Nazis.

They moved further their previous territories and took part in blockade of Leningrad. They are responsible for death of hundreds thousands of Leningrad civilians.

Yes? Did I say otherwise? They did not, however, press the attack.

Absolutely agree. Comparison with raped woman is very effective propaganda tool.

And a very apt description of what happened to the Baltic states. Would you prefer I compare it with a home invasion? Or a burglary, as Yeekim did?

And there was no war or resistance.

Yes there was. Some Estonian military units refused the call for surrender, and fought the Russians anyway. Same thing happened in other states. And there was a grassroots resistance movement from day one, which grew stronger with every Russian atrocity, until it was wiped out after the war.

What about pro-Soviet demonstrations with thousands of people?

You have not proven that that picture was a pro-Soviet demonstration. Also, I call your attention to the fact that the number of Russian-born Estonian citizens and Estonian Communists increased massively in the lead-up to the invasion, as Stalin began calling for emigrants to return home to further his plans. They provided the government and much of the local support for the Communist regime.

So, it's unlawful that Indian territories now are part of USA?

Yes.

Annexation differs from occupation. It cannot be both.

Occupation and annexation are not mutually exclusive. Annexation can replace occupation, but it does not mean that no occupation took place. In fact, it's usually the opposite, as it's difficult to annex somewhere you haven't already occupied.

I used Russian semantics only for Moldavia and Wallachia case. To describe it's not called as occupation in Russian wiki. You know that, but continue to blame. Why?

Because in English, such an event is known as an occupation. Other languages do not come into it.