Talk:Baltic–Soviet relations

Sources

When I split the article, I messed up a few citations. Because this article is overflowing, I don't have time to fix that until later today, but invite anyone else willing to sort through the ref tags and find out where I broke things. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Recognised or not?

I have removed from the lead:

although the majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation.

This was sourced to http://books.google.com/books?id=scc8EboiJX8C&pg=PA104&dq=Baltic+de+jure+recognize+India&hl=ru#PPA103,M1 which states:

The majority of States refused to recognize the incorporation of the Baltic States.

However, this source, http://books.google.com/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA259,M1 written by Antonio Cassese states:

The great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these States.

So long as this discrepancy exists, the assertion that I removed has no place in this article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• There is no discrepancy here: the first citation comes from Recognition of Governments in International Law, the second source given: Self-Determination of Peoples By Antonio Cassese says clearly within the main text on page 258:

'It should be noted that most Western States refused to recognize the legal validity of the Soviet incorporation of the Baltic states.'

The quote given by Russavia is taken out of context from footnotes section. Here is the citation put into context of this footnote on pages 258-259:

1.In October 1974, answering a parliamentary question, the Prime minister Mr, Whitlam said :'...the great majority of countries in the world accept the de jure incorporation of these Sates...'
3.Following the election of a new Liberal-Country Party Government on 4 descember 1975, the new Government decided to withdraw de jure recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union.

--Termer (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This article's creation is amusing

(1) An article purporting to start on the history of the Baltic States and the Soviet Union 4 years after the official 1940 annexations of the Lithuanian SSR, Estonian SSR and Latvian SSR makes absolutely zero sense.
(2) This "new" article has seriously been titled by someone as "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union" as opposed to "Invasion of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union" or "Annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union."
(3) Moreover, the title would be highly inaccurate even if no invasion occurred: the Baltic States and the Soviet Union existed as separate entities for over two decades, and were also separated during the 1941-1944 German occupation, yet that's not in this article titled "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union" which clearly does not cover the topic purported by its title.
(4) In a perhaps unintended but amusing POV twist, the first line of the article cites Dado Muriyev: "In 1944 the Soviet Union reoccupied the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of the Baltic Offensive in 1944, a twofold military-political operation designed to rout Nazi German forces and liberate "the Soviet Baltic peoples".
(5) In fact, perhaps more amusingly, the basis for the invasion, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is not mentioned a single time in non-footnote text.
(6) Indeed, even the official 1940 forced annexation following the Red Army invasion and parliament replacements have been left out of this article. The only mention is the re-invasion in 1944.
(7) The reason for this disconnect is that it is essentially a copy and paste job from the article Occupation of the Baltic States, which included the entire history of the 1940 annexation of the Baltic SSRs and beyond. This is why it was contained in one article -- the events are inseparable both legally and effectively factually. Picking up 4 years later makes absolutely zero sense.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes

As instructed by an administrator re WP:SOFIXIT:
(1) The article now addresses the actual scope of its title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union", i.e., interactions between those states (1922 to 1991) and the three peace treaties that governed Soviet predecessor Russia.
(2) It is now in chron order (it weirdly had all pre-1944 material regarding Baltic state-Soviet relations at the end of the article before).
(3) On areas duped in other articles -- such as Occupation of the Baltic States and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact -- summaries and see tags have been used.
(4) Additions (with sources) have been added
(5) The prior WP:Lede, which was actually copied and pasted from substantive text in another article, now reflects a summary of the article's contents.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I only created this page as a cut and paste from Occupation of the Baltic states. This title allows for a more specific scope, and I encourage any and all to build upon it. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

the current title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" doesn't make much sense I think. I mean, the subject doesn't cover the Baltic states and the Soviet Union only. If anything the split article over here could be called the 'Baltic states during Cold War' perhaps? There is an entire book written on the subject The Baltic question during the Cold War‎. I think such a title would make a more logical split from the current "Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II" which could also have much better title, lets say Baltic states in World War II.--Termer (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

--The problem is that the article's creation was an attempt to split out Occupation of the Baltic states into the later part of an artificial temporal partition at 1944, concurrent with a renaming of that article to Occupation of the Baltic states in World War II. I won't go into the unilateral/no-consensus, blah, blah, etc. that's been addressed on the topic on numerous pages since this morning.

--The obvious issue is that such a split at 1944 makes little sense given that the Baltics were invaded and annexed as Soviet Socialist Republics in 1939-40. The only change that happened in 1944 was the second Soviet invasion to push out the Wermacht, which took them from their temporary status (1941-44) in the Reichskommissariat Ostland, which simply meant that they continued to remain Soviet Socialist Republics.

--The topic "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" is simply an umbrella summary of relations between the countries that extended from the 1920s to the 1990s, with the main material in various other articles addressing each issue between the countries (where applicable).Mosedschurte (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure, in case "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" is meant to be 'just an umbrella summary of the bilateral relations' than it should work according to the title. Things have been just kind of chaotic lately, some time ago the article covered the entire story of the Baltic states during the Cold War, that's the only thing what I was saying.--Termer (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an article titled "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" could be anything other than a summary of bilateral relations/events given its title. It actually can serve a purpose as being a place where the rather extensive 1920s-1933 treaties can be primarily discussed. Right now, they are duped in (copy and paste from) Occupation of the Baltic states, and they more make sense in this article. That article focuses upon the occupations, which don't start until 1939-40.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" was the name of the Resolution 189 (1960) by the Council of Europe, twelfth ordinary session on the twentieth anniversary of their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union [1].--Termer (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved -- Aervanath (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Baltic states and the Soviet Union → Baltic-Soviet relations — the scope of "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" could cover anything, the proposed new title should be much more clear what this article is all about. — Termer (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Neutral at least for now. From the original form, current article was improved to better reflect naming. Proposed rename article is also valid. In any case I may change my "vote" if I will encounter additional argumentation from involved parties. M.K. (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I went with this title because it lacks specificity. Baltic-Soviet relations may be a little too focused, because it implies that the Baltic states were independent. The obvious intent of this article was to deal with the period of time in which the Baltic states were in the Soviet Union, while leaving the article to deal with issues of the legitimacy of these states being inside the Soviet Union. I'm open to a better name. Any objections to Sovereignty of the Baltic states during the Cold War?

RE: lets please get this straight once and for all. "these states being inside the Soviet Union"? which states? There were Baltic Democratic republics that had accredited diplomatic missions in for example the US during the entire time when the Soviet Socialist Baltic states were "inside the Soviet Union". Now, since the territory of any embassy is considered a sovereign territory of the state, how does it make sense to say that the accredited Baltic diplomatic missions in NY, US that represented the Baltic states in the US "were inside the Soviet Union"? In order to make sense of it, we could say that the territories (excluding the diplomatic missions abroad) of Baltic states were 'inside the Soviet Union' or like the western bloc calls it: 'occupied by the Soviet Union'. At the same time the Soviet Baltic states established by the Soviets in 1940, those surely were 'inside the Soviet Union' as constituent republics of the USSR, just that not recognized de jure as such by the Western democracies.--Termer (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support for Baltic-Soviet relations. On the other hand, Sovereignty of the Baltic states during the Cold War would be not just bad, but completely different and duplicative of other articles.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Which articles, specifically? Hiberniantears (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support for Baltic-Soviet relations, the current title is just too vague and thus liable to become a WP:COATRACK. This is a notable topic, given that the Baltic states were the first to recognise the Soviet Union and this article covers the relationship during the 1920's and 30's anyway. Martintg (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support for Baltic-Soviet relations.Biophys (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This gives the article a clear scope, allowing improvement to commence. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate renaming possibility

Sorry to edit and run (to nursing home...) but, editor Igny's comments elsewhere made me think that a better title, along with clear scope, would be Sovereignty of the Baltic states. NOT just "during the Cold War", which would be a bad choice as editor Mosedschurte has indicated, as the issue spans the establishment of independence through re-establishment and subsequent interpretations of history and, thereby, status regarding sovereignty. Comments welcome. With regard to the above, I do favor Baltic-Soviet relations, however, I believe this might be a more focused choice. PetersV       TALK 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support Peters on this one, and would be happy to make the move. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Sovereignty and independence are two different sizes when it comes to the history of the Baltic states - and, their antonym being "occupation", I think an article on each of those topics are relevant. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the Baltic states? Seems very ambiguous to me. That would cover everything from after WWI to the present day. Also it would cover the controversy between the sovereignties of the Baltic states founded after WWI and the sovereignties of the Soviet Baltic states founded by the Soviets in 1940. In case anybody wants to avoid the word occupation and still talk about the period of 1940-1991, there is a book on the subject that covers the era that has a title called the Baltic states years of dependence. to avoid copyvio it would need to be rephrased I guess.--Termer (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Termer, The word "sovereignty" seems very ambiguous to you, since you most probably is a what I would label Homo Sovieticus with an Estonian twist (please in advance excuse me for being very blunt, no offense intended). It also seems to me that you are a slave to Soviet propaganda, thus always repeating childhood teachings. The word "sovereignty" in the anglosphere has not been perverted, ergo the word "sovereignty" will not be considered ambiguous by a majority of WP readers. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Along the long road towards renewed independence, one of the important milestones was the Declaration of Estonian Sovereignty of 1989. Care to guess what it was about? Hint: it didn't involve sovereignty as we understand it, and although it was an important document, Estonia wasn't sovereign after passing this declaration. Add another unexplained, implied sovereignty to the mix, and you're sure to confuse our Dear Reader. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[off topic, but still related] Much of what happened in the "greatest social experiment of all times" aka The Soviet Union is better off explained in it's own article, for instance the way of attributing new value(s) to existing semantics. It is the very core of how propaganda works, to use the very same words as the opponent, in this case the capitalist world, and simply changing the values of the words. In the meantime I think we should concentrate on how to write an article in the English language that is not infested by Soviet paranoia. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In context of the article at hand, it's important to notice that "what happened in USSR" was, to a significant degree, Soviet government, which had risen to power through a revolution and a following bloody civil war, acting cruelly against its own people. What happened in Baltic states and other Eastern Bloc countries, however, was also a case of a foreign power enslaving, killing, brainwashing, and so on of people across international borders. For example, what Stalin did with the Gulags was a crime against humanity, but it wasn't a war crime before the occupations; it only became a war crime when Stalin began "recruiting" foreign countries' citizens into his slave camps. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes... but what does it have to do with my post? We do not disagree on your post above. If you do not understand my point it would be easier to simply say so, instead of poking towards my personal opinions. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear ♥фĩłдωəß♥ not to worry, no offense taken for nonsense. Especially because how exactly referring to the Native American sovereign nations in the US ( anglosphere) makes me Homo Sovieticus with an Estonian twist and how exactly would that even be relevant here, it just doesn't make much sense to me. And labeling your opponent instead of bringing out logical arguments wasn't included among my childhood teachings.--Termer (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[joke on]You read my posts in reverse - just like a Soviet news paper[joke off] - Short and sweet answer to your post above: It is not relevant since I did not comment your post below. No wonder it does not make sense to you. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:♥фĩłдωəß♥ Sovereignty and independence are two different sizes when it comes to the history of the Baltic states. Not only, for example the U.S. government recognizes American Indian Tribes as sovereign nations, it doesn't meant that those 'sovereign nations' are independent countries. Also, the Soviet Baltic states/republics were sovereign republics of the Soviet Union according to the constitution of the Soviet Union.--Termer (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to miss my point. "Sovereignty" and "independence" are the antonyms of "occupation". What I mean is, if I have to spell it out loud, that if you can't tell what things are (to avoid a title to be POV), then you can always tell what things are not. It is not absolutely necessary to include the word "occupation" to the title, if it is very clear from the content of the article that it was "non-sovereignty" during the Soviet occupation. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please double check your dictionary: "Sovereignty" and "independence" are not antonyms for "occupation". Perhaps you missed this class in the high school but "Sovereignty" doesn't necessarily mean "independence" but is the exclusive right to complete political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) control over an area of governance. meaning, lets say after Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states, the de facto sovereignty over the territories was claimed and went to the Soviet Union (either it was legal or not is a different question). Like for example sovereignty over Hong Kong was transferred from the UK to China on July 1, 1997.--Termer (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty, quote:"A nation or state's supreme power within its borders. A government might respond, for example, to criticism from foreign governments of its treatment of its own citizens by citing its rights of sovereignty." If I remember correctly, everything had to pass the desks in The Kremlin. No, the Baltic SSR republics were not sovereign - that is just what the propaganda says. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That explains it, it's your dictionary that's misleading you. Please see the meanings of 'sovereignty' in English for example sovereignty 1obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it2 a: supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control : autonomy c: controlling influence3: one that is sovereign  ; especially : an autonomous state Coming back to my original point, "Sovereignty of the Baltic states" is ambiguous in the context. And yes, almost "everything had to pass the desks" the Palace of Westminster until the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China.--Termer (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we actually agree. You have found a dictionary confirming my point on sovereignty: "freedom from external control", which is the antonym of "occupation". Why do you keep dragging Hong Kong into this? Hong Kong was leased for 99 years by the British, not to be compared at all. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 14:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You picked one meaning out of many and keep ignoring the ambiguity of the word 'Sovereignty' in the context? //Termer out--Termer (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't support, seems a bit vague per Termer. There is a need for Baltic-Soviet relations and prefer this title. Martintg (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Termer does have a point, constitutionally speaking, any Soviet republic could leave any time it wished. And, yes, the article would cover WWI to present day umm... let's leave it as interpretations for now. I really don't see how we can cover sovereignty, including the question of Baltic sovereignty from 1940-1991, in an informative narrative without covering the whole period. Any discussion of legally/not legally, occupied/not occupied, continuous/not continuous necessitates covering post-WWI in its entirety.
     The topic should be "sovereignty" not something else because that is what all three governments to steps to preserve regardless of territorial events--no one expected it would be half a century before territorial integrity would be restored (post-Soviet POV=new countries declared not related to the prior ones). PetersV       TALK 23:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue of sovereignty is always in the context of some event, like a war of independence or an occupation, and would never have arisen without it. I don't see what an article like this would cover that is not already covered in articles such as the various Baltic War of Independence articles, Occupation of the Baltic states or Baltic-Soviet relations. Martintg (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please do not add additional naming proposal, then the move procedure is in the middle of development. It makes additional confusion M.K. (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with M.K. here, this new alternative proposal is a distraction to the original proposal which came out of the AfD. It should be withdrawn. Martintg (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Title of section stricken through. PetersV       TALK 03:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Let's just say I had not made any comment. Peters made a very good, and very objective suggestion here which fixes any issues with the move that I made. This suggestion represents a solid title that provides an NPOV umbrella which gives room to tell the full story of just what Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania had to suffer prior to achieving independence. Not only is this a good story, and one that deserves to be told, but it is a story which can be told objectively under a title such as what Peters brought up, without having to dodge the old Soviet POV pushers. Peters has suggested a better, and probably the best possible, NPOV title. He deserves a lot of credit for this given the antagonism that has emerged between he and I. I, for one, am deeply impressed at his ability to step back from conflict, and make a suggestion that offers a genuinely neutral view of the topic AND allows a comprehensive account and discussion of history to take place. Peters cares deeply about this topic. His dispute with me is proof of this, but his willingness to take a few steps back and offer an NPOV title better than anything I or anyone else has come up with should be embraced and celebrated. Peters has proven me wrong in my assessment of him with this title suggestion. I encourage others to engage this thread and give Peters' suggestion the same fair assessment. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a small addition to the above: This article should not be mainly about achieving independence, this article should be mainly about keeping and regaining sovereignty. Independency of the Baltic states was not interrupted - sovereignty was. This fact is a cornerstone in Peteris' argumentation, but kinda disappears in all those words. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of title, key issues such as the steps taken by the Baltic states to preserve their sovereignty regardless of territorial events need to be covered (there are child articles on at least some of this topic)--I do believe it fits better in to a title/article regarding Baltic sovereignty rather than "Baltic-Soviet relations". PetersV       TALK 05:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Among other problems already mentioned, Soviet propaganda defined sovereignty to mean something completely different -- to the point that Baltic politicians back in late 1980s debated several years what it means to declare sovereignty. Thus, such a title would not appropriately circumscribe the scope of the article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

BUT... That's just Soviet propaganda. Obviously, it should be discounted. What Peters has proposed allows for those propaganda driven POVs to be fully dismissed. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's first priority is our Dear Reader. When careful word choice can avoid confusion, make finding the relevant articles easier and well define their scopes, there's no question: the words are to be chosen carefully. At times this may lead to 言葉狩り; it's somewhat regrettable but an inevitable aspect of how human languages function. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or...isn't the article that discusses those sovereignty issues of the Baltic states during the 'dependency' period of 1940-1991 currently called Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II‎? The original idea Hiberniantears had was to split up the 'dependency' period into WWII and Cold war eras the way I gt it? And this article here was suppose to cover the Cold War era but has turned into Soviet-Baltic relations instead. So the question is, what exactly are we talking about here? In case we're looking for a new more appropriate name for the previous Occupation of the Baltic states title, shouldn't this "Sovereignty of the Baltic states" discussion be taken over there instead? It would make more sense it seems unless I'm completely missing something here...?--Termer (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are my few cents on this, I still think that "Sovereignty of the Baltic states" would speak about the period of 1920s-1940 and then from 1991 onwards. It might be just me but the meaning seems to refer more to the 'independence of the Baltic states'. Would Dependence of the Baltic states pr. The Baltic states, years of dependence, 1940-1990 sound completely weird? I mean, after all, the nominal sovereignty of the Baltic states was entirely dependent of the World powers between 1940-1991. On one side the US that refused to recognize the Soviet annexation right from the beginning and on the other , the Soviet union that claimed the territories of the Baltic countries by forming separate sovereignties in the form of Baltic Soviet republics, the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian SSR's vs. the sovereignties of the Baltic states recognized by the US etc. So the bottom line the Baltic states were not factually independent/sovereign during the period but dependent of...the Western and Eastern bloc policies.-and from there you have it Dependence of the Baltic states in case a title like Occupation of the Baltic states sounds too controversial for Wikipedia purposes --Termer (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

PS.And I'd still suggest taking this discussion over to former Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states--Termer (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The occupation article should focus on events of the occupation, not the question of occupation with regard to Baltic-Soviet relations--that's why I preferred the discussion of sovereignty here where we can also discuss, as properly described in law terms, "forcible acquisition of title." There are all sorts of Baltic declarations in the waning hours of the USSR, they can only be made sense of in terms of their significance if the legal trail of vested sovereign authority is traced from steps taken before Soviet occupation to the return of sovereign authority to Baltic territory and formal vesting in the then territorial authorities. PetersV       TALK 16:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Personal life has not been kind the last year, all my web projects have been on hold. I am looking to dust off a few, including some relevant here. Hough's seminal work "THE ANNEXATION OF THE BALTIC STATES AND ITS EFFECT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAW PROHIBITING FORCIBLE SEIZURE OF TERRITORY" is not available online, a deficiency I hope to address perhaps some time later in the fall. I haven't found my copy of the Soviet Information Bureau monograph discussing invasion and annexation, published before the German invasion, so I located and bought another copy, hopefully en route. PetersV       TALK 16:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Continued

I apologize for straying from the primary title conversation, but there's something to be said of the saying "Put two Latvians in a room and you'll get three opinions". Not just limited to Latvians. :-) The Baltic position is that they:

• all took specific, documented, steps to vest authority so as to preserve it regardless of territorial events
• half a century later, all those vested authorities transferred said vested authority to the territorial authorities, at that moment reinstating said continuous Baltic sovereignty on Baltic soil

That position of continuity is recognized, for example, by treaties which simply resumed as to being in effect between other parties and the Baltic states. The contention that the Baltic States are continuous is based on that timeline. There are all sorts of acts and declarations along that timeline which need to be explored and explained, whether regarding sovereignty or independence or intent to leave the USSR, but they are not related to continuity. PetersV       TALK 17:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, "factually" would be de facto; what makes occupation or not, continuity or not, is de jure. Let's not start mixing the two ourselves. PetersV       TALK 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggest: Title: Baltic-Soviet treaties ?

I suggest the article should be narrowed to consider only Baltic-Soviet treaties. The reason is that we already have the article Occupation of the Baltic states which is quite similar with this one. Also we could shorten the article "Occupation of the Baltic states" and moved all issues from under section "Treaties affecting USSR-Baltic relations" to this article. Peltimikko (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation of the new States?

Why is there no mention of the creation of the new states through the defeat of the Russian Empire, revolution, German occupation, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk etc. At the moment the article suggests that the countries existed before 1918, whereas history gives a different picture.176.1.212.131 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a quite common misconcept (BTW, either conciously or not, shared by Vladimir Putin as heard here). Both Germany and Soviet Russia were opposed to the Estonian Declaration of Independence and the nationalist movements in Latvia and Lithuania. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not create any republics but simply seceded the Baltic territories to Germany. The latter created the United Baltic Duchy in April 1918, which Germany abolished due to the Armistice with Germany in November 1918. After that, the German troops withdrew without any recognition to the Baltic republics and the Soviet Russia broke into wars with them. How can anyone say these republics were created by a German-Russian treaty? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)