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.
You are trying to prove me something and can't do it. There is no point in repeating the same arguments many times, my answers will be the same too. Unless you bring up something new.
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.
Geneva Convention still applies here. Also, second year of the occupation was not.
These parts of Hague and Geneva Conventions apply to countries in state of war. To apply it here you must prove that there was war between Estonia (for example) and USSR. What kind of approval is appropriate here:
- Asking for help from another countries. (Like Poland in 1939 when was attacked by Germany, and Czekhoslovakia in 1968)
- Official declaration of war from Estonian government (Like France, 1939-1940), or declaration that country is attacked by hostile army.
- Significant offensive military actions, like bombing. (lots of examples)
- Capitulation of army (Denmark, 1940; Germany, 1945)
- Significant military resistance (Like Finland, 1939) or civil unrest (Czechoslovakia, 1968)
What we had in reality:
- Baltic governments officially accepted ultimatum and agreed to additional Soviet contingent.
- Places of dislocation of additional Soviet forces were coordinated with local governments.
- Instead of civil unrests we got demonstrations in support.
Well, if Hitler in 1941 coordinated with Stalin where his soldiers can be placed and where not - I would not call this occupation as well. Claim that this can be classified as "occupation" is very serious and can lead to serious liability for country - successor of USSR. Therefore it requires very exact approval - that it can be classified the same way as, for example, Hitler's actions in USSR. That's the other reason why Russians are not agree with that, if you don't like my previous two.
My eyes must fail me, I can't see this quote . Anyway: Article III:
III. Inviolability of frontiers
...
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
...
Ok, good. they will refrain from any action ... against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State
Recognition and claim that some part of country is occupied territory and belongs to country illegally is action against territorial integrity of that country. If you like analogies, you declared that you will not perform any actions directed to seisure of property in my house. If in the same time you claim that some things in my house are belonging to me illegally, this will be violation of agreement.
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.
We discussed this before. All SS members, except conscripts, were recognized as criminals by Nuremberg trial. Some American governmental organization (don't remember exactly which one) later declined this recognition, but we can live with that.
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.
Sharwood declared that USA occupied Indian territories. It looks like pretty much all the US territory belongs to them illegally - according to his claim.
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!"
Just a note. According to you, if Baltic SSR-s were recognized by third countries, they were subjects of international law, the same way as pre-1940 Baltic states were.
You can laugh about analysis of professional historians on this subject - it cannot be considered as valuable argument and will not add credibility to you. The same for other amazing arguments like calling me stalinist, liar, nationalist (Soviet one )... did I forget something? Yes, holocaust deniar!
But it's rather not for you, you are not leader in that.
You are trying to prove me something and can't do it. There is no point in repeating the same arguments many times, my answers will be the same too. Unless you bring up something new.
Nope, I proved it numerous times. And calling you the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier for denying Russian crimes is accurate.
@Grishnash: You remember the Moon Landing Hoax thread you started? You don't really want to get into another argument with me, do you? I destroyed you in that, I can do the same in this, if you persist in such ridiculous notions. Matter of fact, you'd be the intellectual equivalent of a Holocaust denier, with your chronic inability to see facts in front of your face, though not the moral one, as your views are essentially harmless.
Isn't it amazing, that it takes ruthless, brutal, totalitarian dictators to see through Jewish schemes. It took Adolf Hitler to recognise their aims in the Capitalist world, and Joseph Stalin to recognise their aims in the Communist world. I wonder if anyone as noble and brave as these men recognised it in the Third world. Idi Amin perhaps?
The Estonian Legion was a military unit within the Combat Support Forces of the Waffen SS Verfügungstruppe during World War II. The formation was announced on 28 August 1942 by the German occupying powers in Estonia. Oberführer Franz Augsberger was nominated to be the commander of the legion. 500 volunteers had appeared and signed up for the Legion by October 13, 1942 . In the Spring 1943 additional men were drafted from the police forces and the number rose to 1280.[1] 90% of the volunteers had lost a relative in the Red Terror durng 1940-1941.[2]Batllion Narwa was formed from the first 800 men of the Legion who had finished their training at Dębica (Heidelager in 1943), and were sent in April 1943 to join the Division Wiking in Ukraine. They replaced the Finnish Volunteer Battalion, recalled to Finland for political reasons.[3]
In order to recruit more men for the legion, the German Occupying powers turned to forced mobilization in March 1943 by calling up all Estonian men born between 1919-1924. As the result 5,300 men were conscripted into the Estonian Legion and 6,800 for the support service of the Wehrmacht. Another conscription call was anounced in October 1943 for men born in 1925-1926. As the result in order to avoid the draft about 5,000 men escaped to Finland. Over half of these men volunteered for service in the Finnish Defence Forces and formed the Finnish Infantry Regiment 200.
By January 1944 the German military situation in the Eastern front had worsened so far that a general conscription call was announced in Estonia on February 1, 1944. In the hopes of restoring the independence of Estonia the last prime minister of Republic of Estonia Jüri Uluots gave his support to the draft. As the result about 38,000 men were conscripted, the units of Estonian Legion , the Finnish Infantry Regiment 200 were returned to Estonia and were reformed into the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian).
Now, I believe that only among the men who fought in Ukraine in 1943, may be those guilty of war crimes against civilians (I believe there is evidence of incidents concerning sack of four villages and partaking in rounding up a Jewish ghetto in one town). However, you will observe that the overall number of them is just about 800, of whom 500 were volunteers. Vast majority of volunteers (it is estimated about half of this 38,000 may have been willing to join rather than forced to join; I think this estimation is reasonable), joined while front had being pushed back to Estonia. Consequently they can't be guilty of crimes against Belorussian or Ukrainian civilians. And I can't hold fighting USSR together with Germans against them, as they responded to call from their legal government. Mind you, we did not really resist the first time in 1940, but we did the second time in 1944 - because by then we knew what we could expect.
Ok. At least that's new argument.
These parts of Hague and Geneva Conventions apply to countries in state of war. To apply it here you must prove that there was war between Estonia (for example) and USSR. What kind of approval is appropriate here:
- Asking for help from another countries. (Like Poland in 1939 when was attacked by Germany, and Czekhoslovakia in 1968)
- Official declaration of war from Estonian government (Like France, 1939-1940), or declaration that country is attacked by hostile army.
- Significant offensive military actions, like bombing. (lots of examples)
- Capitulation of army (Denmark, 1940; Germany, 1945)
- Significant military resistance (Like Finland, 1939) or civil unrest (Czechoslovakia, 1968)
What we had in reality:
- Baltic governments officially accepted ultimatum and agreed to additional Soviet contingent.
- Places of dislocation of additional Soviet forces were coordinated with local governments.
- Instead of civil unrests we got demonstrations in support.
Well, I get that you at least agree that for there to be recognizable state of war, official declaration of war is not necessary. Also it is said that the convention applies even when there is no resistance (previously bolded by me). And you do not have to conquer a country to occupy it, you can also occupy country that has surrendered. It is clear, that our government tried to to everything to AVOID war. They adopted the policy of "finlandization" before the Finns did, and it did not work out for them, since this was (correctly?) perceived as weakness, and each time they gave in, they met harsher demands. First, in the treaty of mutual assistance http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19390928-3.pdf it was agreed that we will remain sovereign country, then this promise was broken. As we were in no position to resist by then, we surrendered completely - and after that we were occupied. As for asking for help - from who? Germany? Had signed MRP, which we knew of. Britain? They were not able to help Poland nor prevent the fall of Paris. Their hands were full as it was, not to mention Germany held both Denmark and Norway, so any help to Estonia would have been technically impossible at this point. Finland? Latvia?
And what happened after surrender? Take a look at this picture: http://www.okupatsioon.ee/nimekirjad/raamat/kgbdok/valitsus.html
This is Estonian government formed in 1938. Only one of these men survived past 1944 - the foreign minister who was in Geneva. Of others, 6 died in prison camps, 5 were executed, 1 fell in battle against Soviet paratroopers. Families of 3 were deported. Similar fate befell 8 former heads of state and 38 ministers. Or take Gen. Johan Laidoner, commander-in-chief or army.
Spoiler:
22. June 1940 - relieved from office.
19. July 1940 - deported to Russia with family, placed under house arrest. 28.June 1941 arrested together with family, placed in prison.
7th March 1953 (year not a mistake)]: announced verdict: 25 years in prison according to USSR criminal code § 58-4.
Charges? Armed fight against Soviet forces during Estonian War for Independence in 1918-1920(!). Never mind the Tartu Peace Treaty from 1920! Died in prison in 1953, buried in Vladimir.
And that is just one example of hundreds of officers, politicians, etc, arrested/executed for similar charges during occupation.
Well, if Hitler in 1941 coordinated with Stalin where his soldiers can be placed and where not - I would not call this occupation as well. Claim that this can be classified as "occupation" is very serious and can lead to serious liability for country - successor of USSR. Therefore it requires very exact approval - that it can be classified the same way as, for example, Hitler's actions in USSR. That's the other reason why Russians are not agree with that, if you don't like my previous two.
Now you get down to the real reason. Russian government is reluctant to take responsibility, as it fears demands of compensation. Simple. True. I may add that I would not support any such demands - besides doomed to be futile, the bartering that would follow would beat most divorce procedures. I'd like an apology though. And some token of good will, like return of scientific collections of Tartu University, andPresident's Chain of Office, for example.
Ok, good. they will refrain from any action ... against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State
Recognition and claim that some part of country is occupied territory and belongs to country illegally is action against territorial integrity of that country.
That is core of the debate, whether "claim" is an "action". Anyway most signatory states continued to recognize Estonia and did not recognize SSR's, so their interpretation was different from yours and Soviet one.
Every account I've read of these demonstrations mentions, that they were accompanied by Red Army armored vehicles. I also gave numbers how many members of Communist Party there was in Estonia. Multiply these numbers with reasonable constant and you'll get how many could have supported annexation (although even many local communists were hoping for status kind of like Mongolia). What, do you want to say Zhdanov was morally above such actions?
Sharwood declared that USA occupied Indian territories. It looks like pretty much all the US territory belongs to them illegally - according to his claim.
Just a note. According to you, if Baltic SSR-s were recognized by third countries, they were subjects of international law, the same way as pre-1940 Baltic states were.
Question, yeah. Refuse to believe the facts even when they are front of their face? They have the right, but I think we also have the right to laugh heartily at them.
Question, yeah. Refuse to believe the facts even when they are front of their face? They have the right, but I think we also have the right to laugh heartily at them.
Well, there no denying this.
Then again, don't underestimate the power of Soviet propaganda. Till the very present day, (most) Soviet/Russian historians have been most prolific in distorting or sometimes outright forging history, and I'd imagine our friend here has had privilege of reading several of such works.
This works both ways of course, but Estonia's advantage is, that it is really small. And literally everyone was involved in these events. EVERY Estonian alive today can/could have firsthand account from their parents/grandparents. My own grandparents were in their 20-s at the time. It is not at all uncommon to have ancestors who fought on both sides of the war. And you won't find a family that did not lose someone to deportation, to war, or escaping into exile. Collective memory is still very strong.
On the other hand, how many Russians could really witness what was going on here, say, in June 1940? Some 115 000 soldiers. Tiny fraction compared to Russian population. And God knows how many of them even survived the war. So if some witch-doctor writes a heated account of how suppressed masses of workers here welcomed the USSR, who's gonna disprove it? For that's obviously what many Russians would like to believe. Thankfully there is enough evidence to pull reasonable conclusions once you really get down to it.
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.
Read that and tell me if it doesn't sound... I don't know, like you are just trying to pull something out of the hat. But on a side note, the USA did dose that
Then again, don't underestimate the power of Soviet propaganda. Till the very present day, (most) Soviet/Russian historians have been most prolific in distorting or sometimes outright forging history, and I'd imagine our friend here has had privilege of reading several of such works.
Sadly, you're right. The propaganda machine of the USSR was brilliant, and people, such as our moose-like friend, still buy it to this day. They even obviously buy the parts about how anything that doesn't agree with them is evil capitalist propaganda to be distrusted. That's certainly the impression red_elk is giving off. Hell, he pretty much said so.
You proved it numerous times to yourself, whereas tried to prove me. And fell several times to personal attacks, which makes discussion with you pointless.
Read that and tell me if it doesn't sound... I don't know, like you are just trying to pull something out of the hat. But on a side note, the USA did dose that
And again Yeekim... Really?... I mean, rreeaallyy?
Read the Wikis I or Yeekim posted. The number of Russians with Estonian citizenship and Estonian expatriates involved in Communist parties in Estonia increased massively in the months leading up to the invasion. And Russia is known to have used the "dress soldiers in civilian clothes for rallies" trick on occasion. That's not propaganda.
You proved it numerous times to yourself, whereas tried to prove me. And fell several times to personal attacks, which makes discussion with you pointless.
I proved it conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt to any reasonable person on this planet. Therefore I can only assume, sadly, that you are not reasonable. I made no personal attacks on you. Calling you the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier is factual, for denying Russian crimes despite unassailable evidence to the contrary is equivalent to Holocaust denial.
They were rounded up to be murdered for being Jewish. Stalin was executing a pogrom when he died. That's undeniable historical fact, so I expect you to deny it, probably coming up with some Russian word meaning pogrom-like, but not quite pogrom.
I do think that the actions of Stalin in his later years of life were anti-Semitic in nature, althrough I wouldn't use the word "porgom". And a few of these doctors were indeed Russian.
Read that and tell me if it doesn't sound... I don't know, like you are just trying to pull something out of the hat. But on a side note, the USA did dose that
If there was really such wide support for Soviet Union here, why did these "demonstrations" only begin once Red Army had crossed into Estonia?
Why were there so few volunteers into Red Army when Germany attacked it?
Why was there so strong partisan activity against USSR are so little against Nazis?
Why were those conscripted by USSR in 1941 sent into construction battalions (read: basically forced labor camps) rather than to the front?
When survivors were finally merged into units and sent to the front, why did so many of them defect?
Why did some 100,000 people escape to the west during German occupation?
Why did partisans manage to persist here so long after war, if the USSR held large popular support?
Why were the ranks of Communist Party so thin around here?
What happened with all this love and enthusiasm over the years?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. Anyway:
