USSR Like it or not?

[Yeekim]

Red_Elk, are you actually in Russia or in Canada? Because if you are in Russia, I wonder if you could find an issue of Pravda from 28. May, 1940 in the library. Or have someone look for it. There should be pretty interesting article. I've found numerous references to this in the web, but unfortunately not the original itself. Excerpt from one source I could find in English:

Pravda actually complained, for example, on 28 May 1940, of pro-British and anti-German feelings in Estonia. It accused the Estonian élite of "loyalty to Great Britain and hatred of Germany and everything German," of viewing the occupation of Norway and Denmark as "German aggression and enslavement of small nations" -- and of claiming that war between the USSR and Germany was inevitable.

http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2006/11/dat-ole-time-propaganda.html

Yeah. We Nazis...

 

[Julian Delphiki]

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.

Is there some difference to Soviet rule here?

 

[Sharwood]

Is there some difference to Soviet rule here?

Yeah, under Soviet rule they were hunting down Balts.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Did you misspell liberating?

 

[red_elk]

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.

It was only you who start talking about fairy tale pigs. Yeekim answered about veterans.

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.

Especially Estonian patriots in SS uniform.

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.

Peace of whatever you want. It was not a war.

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.

Legitimate - no.
Peaceful - yes.

And have, several times.

Try harder.

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.

Occupation concept implies that Baltic was invaded and unlawfully ruled by Soviet administration. In the same time, it implies that Baltic states existed as subjects of international law, and they were part of Soviet territory unlawfully. That's what Baltic officials are standing for.
Helsinki act, if you read it, legitimates USSR in its borders of 1975 and thus recognized Baltic states as legal part of Soviet Union. Moreover, it guaranteed inviolability of Soviet borders and secession of any part of USSR, according to that protocol, automatically becomes unlawful.
These two concepts are mutually exclusive. You cannot declare USSR legitimate in it borders and in the same time declare that part of it is occupied country.

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.

What influence those Marxists-Leninists had on state politics? To recognize something or not to recognize? 0% or slightly above?

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

I have never heard about Russian historian admitting for Example official Estonian view on this topic. How many of them are nationalists? Is it possible not to be nationalist and not recognize this "occupation"?

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

He said it was peaceful, without clarifying.

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.

I don't know what reasons they had and what not in 1941, and what of that could be foreseen in 1939. It's not a reason to leave a second largest city of a country undefended. And this territory was indeed required for security, USSR offered it for exchange before war. The goal was not to "defeat" Finland, those territories were required.

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

You said they had no designs for Soviet territories except captured in Winter War. Why they captured territories which they had no designs then?

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?

With burning alive if you wish to. All such comparisons are useful only to impress people who don't know what happened there in reality.

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.

And some welcomed it and later joined Red Army.

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.

They were addressed to Yeekim. First contains banner with "We demand joining to USSR" text, and second was provided with link to description.

Yes.

In US and Indian territories case, there was war, but there was no country-victim. So that was no occupation either.
And according to Helsinki act, all US territories belong to them lawfully.

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.

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

Occupation differs from annexation that in the first case, occupied country continues to exist as subject of international law. Occupation can turn to annexation, but they both can't exist at the same time. Baltic officials claim that whole period between end of WW2 and 1991 was period of Soviet occupation. This is wrong

 

[red_elk]

Red_Elk, are you actually in Russia or in Canada? Because if you are in Russia, I wonder if you could find an issue of Pravda from 28. May, 1940 in the library. Or have someone look for it. There should be pretty interesting article. I've found numerous references to this in the web, but unfortunately not the original itself. Excerpt from one source I could find in English:

http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2006/11/dat-ole-time-propaganda.html

Yeah. We Nazis...

I'm in Canada now.
Pravda was a propaganda tool. In 1940 it was necessary to postpone war with Germany as much as possible. If possible to have them attack Britain instead of USSR. The same Britain and France (before invasion) did.

Is there some difference to Soviet rule here?

No, no difference. Soviets also genocided Jews and were burning Belorussian villagers.

 

[luiz]

No, no difference. Soviets also genocided Jews and were burning Belorussian villagers.

They genocided the kulaks and burned chechen villages

 

[Dachs]

They genocided the kulaks and burned chechen villages

Technically, the kulak affair wasn't a genocide according to the rules, but more of a liquidization.

 

[red_elk]

They genocided the kulaks and burned chechen villages

Read definition of genocide

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Technically, the kulak affair wasn't a genocide according to the rules, but more of a liquidization.

Technically is was primitive COIN. But the propaganda machine won't admit to that.

 

[Yeekim]

Especially Estonian patriots in SS uniform.

It was not possible for non-Germans to be part of Wehrmacht. Means the uniform could not be chosen. Live with it.

Peace of whatever you want. It was not a war.

It was, however, an aggression according to Litvinov protocol, signed by both USSR and Estonia.

Spoiler :

Article II.

Accordingly, the aggressor in an international conflict shall, subject to the agreements in force between the parties to the dispute, be considered to be State which is the first to commit any of the following actions:

(1) Declaration of war upon another State;

(2) Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State; - check

(3) attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State; - check

(4) Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State; -check

(5) Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

Article III.

No political, military, economic or other considerations may serve as an excuse or justification for the aggression referred to in Article 2. (For examples, see Annex.)

EDIT: You can also check out Charter of League of Nations and pact of Briand-Kellogg, to which this protocol pertains to, and which once again forbid use of violence and aggression of any kind between signatories (among whom both USSR and Baltic countries can be found). In Nuremberg, Nazi leaders were found to be aggressors, guilty of crimes against peace, and accordingly hung. Soviet aggressors, however, continue to parade around clattering and clanking and wonder why there are some who refuse to venerate them unconditionally.

Legitimate - no.
Peaceful - yes.

Peaceful only until Stalin approved scorched earth tactics, and their attempted (and largely successful) implementation sparked armed resistance.

Helsinki act, if you read it, legitimates USSR in its borders of 1975

No, it does not.

secession of any part of USSR, according to that protocol, automatically becomes unlawful.

No, it would not.
I kindly suggest you read it yourself.

I have never heard about Russian historian admitting for Example official Estonian view on this topic.

Try Roginsky.

He said it was peaceful, without clarifying.

I meant that the events of June 1940 were mostly peaceful and that at this time, no military resistance on a meaningful scale was meant. The day-long shootout at Single Signal Battalion could get an honorable mention.

With burning alive if you wish to. All such comparisons are useful only to impress people who don't know what happened there in reality.

We've established that Soviet actions towards Baltic states were in breach of both international law and numerous bilateral agreements. I brought the comparison because I sincerely do not understand your adversity specifically to term "occupation" in this context.

And some welcomed it and later joined Red Army.

Yes, there undoubtedly were volunteers. For each one, there was twenty forcefully "conscripted" men who perished in construction battalions in Soviet heartland. Also, entire Russian armies joined Nazis. Your point?

They were addressed to Yeekim. First contains banner with "We demand joining to USSR" text,

In Russian. So, likely written by Russian.

and second was provided with link to description.

however, with nothing on the photo itself to hint whether it was taken in Moscow, Riga or Chicago. Or for what reason the people there had convened.

In US and Indian territories case, there was war, but there was no country-victim. So that was no occupation either.
And according to Helsinki act, all US territories belongs to them lawfully.

Nowhere does this accord even contain word "lawful".

Occupation differs from annexation that in the first case, occupied country continues to exist as subject of international law. Occupation can turn to annexation, but they both can't exist at the same time. Baltic officials claim that whole period between end of WW2 and 1991 was period of Soviet occupation. This is wrong

As long as the occupied state is internationally recognized, (i.e. it has working embassies, its passports are recognized in third countries, etc) it obviously still exists as subject of international law. This was the case with Baltic states as well. As "sovietization" of 1940 was illegal, it could not legally end the existence of independent Baltic states. Simple yet obviously too elusive for some.

 

[red_elk]

It was not possible for non-Germans to be part of Wehrmacht. Means the uniform could not be chosen. Live with it.

I'm talking about Estonian Waffen-SS

It was, however, an aggression according to Litvinov protocol, signed by both USSR and Estonia.

EDIT: You can also check out Charter of League of Nations and pact of Briand-Kellogg, to which this protocol pertains to, and which once again forbid use of violence and aggression of any kind between signatories (among whom both USSR and Baltic countries can be found). In Nuremberg, Nazi leaders were found to be aggressors, guilty of crimes against peace, and accordingly hung. Soviet aggressors, however, continue to parade around clattering and clanking and wonder why there are some who refuse to venerate them unconditionally.

It was not an occupation.

Peaceful only until Stalin approved scorched earth tactics, and their attempted (and largely successful) implementation sparked armed resistance.

Joining in 1940 was peaceful.

No, it does not.

No, it would not.
I kindly suggest you read it yourself.

I read it and brought a quote.

Try Roginsky.

I meant that the events of June 1940 were mostly peaceful and that at this time, no military resistance on a meaningful scale was meant.

Ok.

We've established that Soviet actions towards Baltic states were in breach of both international law and numerous bilateral agreements. I brought the comparison because I sincerely do not understand your adversity specifically to term "occupation" in this context.

Because it's wrong and used in anti-Russian rhetorics.

Yes, there undoubtedly were volunteers. For each one, there was twenty forcefully "conscripted" men who perished in construction battalions in Soviet heartland. Also, entire Russian armies joined Nazis. Your point?

What - my point? Volunteers should be respected, those who voluntarily joined Nazis - punished. Nationality doesn't matter.

In Russian. So, likely written by Russian.
however, with nothing on the photo itself to hint whether it was taken in Moscow, Riga or Chicago. Or for what reason the people there had convened.

There were no pro-Soviet demonstrations?

Nowhere does this accord even contain word "lawful".

It doesn't mention USA and Indians as well. So what?

As long as the occupied state is internationally recognized, (i.e. it has working embassies, its passports are recognized in third countries, etc) it obviously still exists as subject of international law. This was the case with Baltic states as well. As "sovietization" of 1940 was illegal, it could not legally end the existence of independent Baltic states. Simple yet obviously too elusive for some.

Territorial integrity of USSR was recognized internationally. It had no "illegal" parts, just as USA hasn't.

 

[Sharwood]

Jesus, I was going to demolish those arguments, but Yeekim did it so well that you're just saying; "It was not an occupation." Do you put your fingers in your ear and closes your eyes when your schoolteachers tell you you're wrong?

There is no need to continue this conversation, you have been utterly trounced. Your refusal to accept this puts you on par with a Holocaust denier, which I think I've said about you before, as you do this somewhat regularly. Unfortunately, so do many other Russians on the boards, which is sad.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

No, no difference. Soviets also genocided Jews and were burning Belorussian villagers.

Good that you admit it. Any idea what Stalin was planning just before his death?

 

[Dachs]

Technically is was primitive COIN. But the propaganda machine won't admit to that.

...with about as much justification as ethnic profiling in airport security lines. The Sovs did COIN well enough and comparatively humanely in Central Asia. What they did to their (poorly defined, if the Zinoviev quote isn't apocryphal) class enemies was atrocious.

 

[Yeekim]

I'm talking about Estonian Waffen-SS.

Which all conscripts were made part of, without exception.

It was not an occupation.

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.- Hague Convention, 1907
Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.- Geneva Convention, 1949.
Estonia was placed under authority of Red Army and NKVD, with former previously having initiated aggression against Estonia by virtue of blockade, attack on aircraft and finally invasion - and shortly proceeded to arrest, deport and execute Estonian citizens, therefore clearly being hostile. The fact that USSR staged some "people's revolution" here, handpicking members of its puppet government, does not change this. Anyone, even with mental capacity of a caribou, can understand this would not have been possible without massive presence of Soviet troops and orchestration from Kremlin.

Joining in 1940 was peaceful.

Geneva Convention still applies here. Also, second year of the occupation was not.

I read it and brought a quote.

My eyes must fail me, I can't see this quote . Anyway:
Article III:
III. Inviolability of frontiers
The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the
frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from
assaulting these frontiers.
Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and
usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.

So participants agree not to violate each other frontiers (not borders, subtle but important difference) - and will refrain from assaulting them.

IV. Territorial integrity of States
The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the
participating States.
Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State, and in particular from any such action constituting a threat or use of force.
The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in contravention of international law, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of them. No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.

So participants will not take any action, especially military one, against integrity of eachothers' territory. Neither of these two articles in any way handles the question, of whether the status quo of frontiers or territorial integrity of signatories was achieved according to international law. This is merely as agreement not to change them using military force or to commit any acquisitions from each other. So your first claim that this agreement somehow "legitimates" occupation of Baltic countries does not hold water.

VIII. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples
The participating States will respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States. By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish
their political, economic, social and cultural development.
The participating States reaffirm the universal significance of respect for and effective exercise of equal rights and self-determination of peoples for the development of friendly relations among themselves as among all States; they also recall the importance of the elimination of any form of violation of this principle.

So your second claim that secession of any part of USSR, according to this protocol, automatically becomes unlawful, does not hold water as well. Actually, in this case I can't quite imagine the amount of misinterpretation or reasoning it would take to claim something like that. Were you quoting the opinion of some Soviet legal expert or was that your own interpretation?

Because it's wrong and used in anti-Russian rhetorics.

We dealt with the first reason. I must say that I love the second one, however.

What - my point? Volunteers should be respected, those who voluntarily joined Nazis - punished. Nationality doesn't matter.

Right to resist occupation is pretty basic tenet of international law. And I've never heard that this is limited to first 24 hours, days, weeks or months of occupation either. Nationality, indeed, does not matter.

There were no pro-Soviet demonstrations?

There were. You brought pictures of some guys holding a slogan, written in Russian, demanding accession into USSR. My wild guess is that these guys included local communists (maybe few hundred active in Estonia at that time), Russian civilian personnel brought over to assist in construction of military bases and possibly Red Army soldiers in civilian clothes. Plus aide of Zhdanov in role of counsel in organisatory and political matters.

It doesn't mention USA and Indians as well. So what?

Well, I don't know why you dragged them into this...

Territorial integrity of USSR was recognized internationally. It had no "illegal" parts, just as USA hasn't.

Baltic SSR-s, however, were recognized only by Austria, Sweden, Venezuela and Argentina. Probably few others. The fact that international community recognized "territorial integrity of USSR" - i.e. wouldn't start a nuclear war over us, does not change the fact that in 1940 USSR attacked all Baltic states in breach with international conventions and bilateral treaties and occupied them for next 50 years. The Russian historians arguing that are arguing semantics - and in quite a laughable way.
"Yes, Your Honor, I admit that I threatened him. Yes, I admit that I held a gun at his temple. No, you can't call that a robbery! See, I was clever enough to make him sign and seal a legal contract, stating that he gives everything away voluntarily!"

 

[Sharwood]

Estonia was placed under authority of Red Army and NKVD, with former previously having initiated aggression against Estonia by virtue of blockade, attack on aircraft and finally invasion - and shortly proceeded to arrest, deport and execute Estonian citizens, therefore clearly being hostile. The fact that USSR staged some "people's revolution" here, handpicking members of its puppet government, does not change this. Anyone, even with mental capacity of a caribou, can understand this would not have been possible without massive presence of Soviet troops and orchestration from Kremlin.

Nice touch.

Well, I don't know why you dragged them into this...

I mentioned them, as an example of an occupation not involving a declaration of war.

 

[Yeekim]

I mentioned them, as an example of an occupation not involving a declaration of war.

Oh it was you then.
Anyway, they had no business to be mentioned in Helsinik Accords.

 

[Sharwood]

Oh it was you then.
Anyway, they had no business to be mentioned in Helsinik Accords.

Yes, which raises the question of why exactly he brought them up in regards to it.

 

[Grishnash]

Well, I am not Russian... Nope, I'm American, so....
I read some of the post, (there are alot) and I just can't bring myself to see it from your (you guys who disapprove of the USSR) point of view, I mean I try! I really do, but I can't... And to not prolong the debate that is very sad indeed, I well just say that the only problem (in the real world of empires and nations...) with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is that it fell.
But I do like to read other people debate on stuff like this, it's just to bad it's never between two... ... Good debaters

Originally Posted by red_elk
There were no pro-Soviet demonstrations?

There were. You brought pictures of some guys holding a slogan, written in Russian, demanding accession into USSR. My wild guess is that these guys included local communists (maybe few hundred active in Estonia at that time), Russian civilian personnel brought over to assist in construction of military bases and possibly Red Army soldiers in civilian clothes. Plus aide of Zhdanov in role of counsel in organisatory and political matters.

So sad... Yeekim...