Talk:Military occupations by the Soviet Union/Archive 1

Particular cases

Hungary

Post-war Hungary (1944-90) was a Sovereign state by international law, rather than "occupied territory". Also, Soviet troops were stationed and regulated by perhaps unequal but real international bilateral treaties and were confined to bases rather than were occupational authorities. The suppression of 1956 Budapest is a single event, not 1944-1990 "occupation. --Irpen 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

Same a Hungary. --Irpen 16:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to commence original counting of troops, or go by the sources? Digwuren 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. Czechoslovakia was an internationally and universally recognized state, not occupied territory like, say, West Bank. --Irpen 16:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's your personal view, however official Czech Republic disagrees with you [1] Martintg 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

East Germany

Same as above. If the coverage was restricted to the early years, it would have been one thing. You stretch the "Soviet occupation" to the re-unification. E. DE was an internationally and universally recognized state, not occupied territory. --Irpen 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a source that treats the whole Warsaw Pact Organisation as an instrument of occupation, and also explains how the occupation was deliberately disguised for political purposes. I will get to adding it to the article, eventually. Digwuren 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What's next? Soviet occupation of Russia?Anonimu 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, because no RS speak of such an occupation, while they do in the instance of the other countries. Personally, I do believe Russia - the great, true Russia of the Tsars - was occupied by the Soviets and continues to be by their KGB holdovers, but that's irrelevant. We work with RS here, and those sources do back up the notion (plain as daylight in any case) that the other countries were occupied. Biruitorul 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. In essence, Soviets occupied Russia, and killed its original leaders, the Czar family. However, Soviets being based in Russia, such acts are not generally referred to as "occupation" but "revolution" by the relevant WP:RS. Accordingly, the policy obliges Wikipedians to do the same, and a Wikipedian's individual assessment, no matter how intelligent he or she may be, doesn't count. Digwuren 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Overemphasizing the role of RS against base policies such as NPOV is against the spirit of wikipedia. And it's great to see a extreme nationalist hungarian site being considered a RS. It says a lot about the propagandistic intentions of the ones who put it.Anonimu 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

As repeated restored by Digwuren:

With a few exceptions, such as Romania where Soviet troops left in 1958, this occupation lasted up to the Autumn of Nations of 1989, and in some cases, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Same as above. Soviets were an occupational authority only immediately after the war. Then the countries became sovereign and internationally and universally recognized. Even though they may be called Satellite states this is not one and the same as occupied territory while the entire article treats those as such. Stationing foreign troops according to bilateral treaties is not the same thing as occupying someone.

I am removing this weasel sentence. I am also tagging a sentence that provides author's own definition of the Soviet occupation. --Irpen 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not defining the concept in this sentence at all. I am merely summarising the history of Soviet occupation. Digwuren 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR. --Irpen 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Occupatuion?

Until the end of Stalinization and normalization of relations between SU and its various satellites, such as signing treaties that formalized the presence of Soviet troops in those countries, many scholars argue that the term 'occupation' is applicable. This was discussed at Northern Group of Forces (and interested editors are invited to read through that article and particulary, the ref Mirosław Golon, Północna Grupa Wojsk Armii Radzieckiej w Polsce w latach 1945-1956. Okupant w roli sojusznika (Northern Group of Soviet Army Forces in Poland in the years 1945-1956. Occupant as an ally) - [2] - unfortunatly its only in Polish).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some scholars argue" is not enough to be stated in articles in an undisputed form. And even less so in the articles' titles.

And on top of that, the article states that its scope is not the initial years until the "formalization" but an entire period until 1991. --Irpen 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have provided refs for Poland, from the article we both once edited extensively. As explained back then, in the case of Poland the year 1956 ends the period of occupation (I have yet to find a modern Polish scholar who would disagree with this term before 1956, but per above ref, after 1956 this term becomes much more controversial). As for other Eastern Bloc states, I wonder - when was the presence of their group of forces legalized? Perhaps if we can answer that, we will know for which periods 'occupation' is applicable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide, as possibly illustrative, the example of Estonia. Republic of Estonia is generally considered to have become sovereign again in 1991; however, Soviet Union's army remained in place (and was involved, for example, in the Pullapää crisis of 1993) until 1994. The relevant criterion commonly used is that the army, despite it was still in place, was not backing an externally applied political system anymore, and thus, the occupation had ended.

It has turned out that some scholars consider the whole Warsaw Pact system an instrument of occupation. I am not yet familiar with the full relevant treatises, but, if they're commonly accepted, it would take a lot out of the controversiality. Even if not, based on the criterion I mentioned, such treatment still may merit reflection on Wikipedia. Digwuren 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps this and perhaps that", the article defines the scope as going all the way to the Autumn of the Nations. --Irpen 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It simply needs more citations. Those for Poland are now provided.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The citation for Poland is provided that some scholars consider the 1945-56 years as "occupation". The article's author asserts the term applies up to 1990-91. --Irpen 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to correct those errors in the article. The Poland section states accurately that the concept of Soviet occupation applies to the years 1939-1956.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not tag the Poland section as you may notice. --Irpen 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting (weasel, peacoc)

Can somebody give examples of this zoo in the article, and maybe copyedit the article to remove such phrases? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the zoo was added as a way to make fun of the Cartel's fondness of meaningless tags, as can be seen very vividly on Soviet occupation of Romania and Occupations of Latvia. It probably doesn't refer to anything specific, but if there's one of these meaningless tags, I don't see why not all four. Digwuren 20:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article contained few weasel words when I checked it. I added the peacock for better color balance and the peacock icon looked kindof cute. Don't know what peacock phrases are supposed to mean exactly, but I guess they are there with all other evil things aswell. I demand more animal templates! It's boring if people use only POV and weasel template to discredit articles. Suva 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope I fixed the zoo out there for now, the only thing remaining: can we have a tag for one of these that has a bear on it please?--Termer 06:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed

Ok, help yourselves guys, please list exactly what in this article is not neutral enough? Thanks--Termer 10:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article shows good progress, and I think for once we should make one GA together. So let's fix any issues with the article. For this purpose let's try to use simple approach of:

1. Claim (like: Soviet Union action towards "Foo" cannot be considered occupation.)
2. Source(s) refuting the claim (Like: [1][2][3] consider Soviet Union action towards "Foo" as occupation.)
3. If no sources are provided or they cannot be considered to match WP:RS, then the section is removed from article.
4. If reliable sources on both view points exist then both viewpoints should be brought out in appropriate section.

I also think if the sources are VERY controversial, then we should have section of "Disputed occupations" or something similar, which explains positions which are very controversial.

Please make the claims and refutes stick out of the rest of the conversation. (Bold them). And try to keep them short. I or someone else will gather the summaries for now and then. If something gets too heated I will make sure that neutral uninvolved editor will take a look at them. Suva 10:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Those who think that there are issues with neutrality, should list them here. I strongly suggest splitting notes from references (see how it was done in Soviet invasion of Poland (1939).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as EE is concerned, the article treats an entire period until 1990 as an occupation. This certainly is a POV. EE countries were sovereign nations and the notion of the Satellite State is not the same as the notion of the occupied territory. The Soviet troops were stationed in the respective countries in accordance with perhaps unequal but internationally valid treaties and were confined to bases rather than being an occupational military force. Piotrus brought some source that considered the status of PL as under occupation until 1956. This is the source's POV but even that one does not stretch the occupation till 1990.

Next, the article presents several "occupations" that took place under totally different circumstances and at the entirely different times together. This is WP:SYNTH. The pre-WW2 takeover of 1) Baltics, 2) Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and 3) Western UA and BE on one hand and the Soviet advance through Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungrary and Austria in the course of the war where the USSR was attacked by Nazi Germany and its allies (btw, many of those countries were nazi allies) on the other hand are too loosely related (if related at all) to be pasted together under one topic. Even the first three were different. While occupation of Baltics occurred with the violation of the international law, Bukokovina and Bessarabia were ceded to the USSR by Romania following the Soviet ultimatum.

And on top of this we see the Afganistan, which is just lunacy to put together with the rest. Imagine the [[Polish occupation]] article that would be made by pasting Polish occupation of Western Ukraine in the course of the PL-UA war, the occupation of BE and central UA in the course of the Polish-Soviet war and, on top of that, Polish participation in partitioning of Czechoslovakia 20 years later. This is nothing but WP:SYNTH.

The article was started seemingly with an ax to grind and make a WP:POINT with an arbitrary scope and was followed by all that came to people's minds being dumped into it. It remains greatly sufferring from the problems caused by the article's WP:POINTy inception. --Irpen 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Phew, this article has some serious problems. I just went through and deleted some blatantly POVish remarks that seem quite intent and saying that the Soviet Union was an evil empire of doom and gloom (while historically that certainly is somewhat accurate under Stalin, but the way this is being approached is all wrong). The issues being presented above about the occupations having a POV to them as well should be looked at, but I'm not so familiar in that area, so I would suggest that this article be worked on heavily or otherwise sent to WP:AFD. Cowman109^Talk 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It does have its issues, like the Reagan's quotation of "evil empire" (which was not attributed and was inaccurately reported as "common"). Some of these issues may be attributed to the Cartel USSR Forever! trying to disrupt it for political reasons. However, all things considered, the article is currently making good progress.

Oh, and thank you for your efforts to improve the article. Digwuren 00:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When I first came across this article it looked like a work in progress project according to Wikipedia:Article series. An idea not that different from other similar projects on WP I've recently have came across and contributed to: for example List of revived languages, Collaboration during World War II. Therefore I can't share an opinion that this one here is WP:POINT or WP:SYNTH like suggested. Or in case it is, is it the same with List of revived languages and Collaboration during World War II etc? Another question is how to make the article more neutral since the history of USSR is highly controversial. Any suggestions welcome. Thanks!--Termer 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS.The "POV" of this article is or at least should be in my opinion the military history concerning article series of Soviet military interventions and occupations throughout its history. I think WP Military history WikiProject would benefit from it, it's good to have a central article that involves the theme and would help to organize the related articles on WP better. I also wouldn't see anything wrong, rather opposite actually with having an article that would list all Polish interventions throughout history like suggested. --Termer 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PPS. I'd suggest to avoid opinions like "which is just lunacy" etc. on WP discussion pages. Also, I'd avoid commenting on a subject while at the same time saying clearly: "I'm not not so familiar in that area". But then again, it might be me who just misunderstood the statements.--Termer 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: You constantly ignore one of the most important rules of wikipedia: Assuming good faith. Also, some your claims have basis, but are not entirely true. I guess, you would prefer if wikipedia wouldn't present term Soviet Occupation at all, and maybe some estonians would like to have article on Soviet Occupation of Doom and Gloom, but this is not how we work. Please present your problems in simple sentences, as a list, so we can either refute or accept them and spend me the work of doing it myself. Blaming eachother and destructive threats of AFD'ing is not useful. Thank you in advance! Suva 07:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

just noted that User:Irpen has justified the last tagging with a suggestion to  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} : "read talk"! Without concerning to read it by her/himself. Meanwhile I guess the rest of us should just keep up the good faith!--Termer 08:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen has claimed that Eastern European countries were sovereign. Here's a pointy question:

• If Estonian SSR was sovereign in the 1950s, why would Estonian oil shale mines first deliver gasified oil shale to Leningrad, and only years later, to Tallinn? Being fully versed in the system of planned economy, you can't really say it's a matter of highest bidder. Digwuren 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Soviets go home!"

Sowieci do domu or "Soviets go home" was a popular slogan of protest against Soviet occupation and terror in countries they conquered. It was often printed or sprayed in cities where Soviets located their invading troops. Perhaps somebody has a photo of that slogan as it would be useful illustration of society's protest towards the occupation. I think the slogan was widespread in several occupied countries-I found sources relating its usage in relation to protests Lithuania, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Poland. As to photos I found a few: Here is a good photo:[3] from spontenous manifestation of Polish people against Soviet occupation in 1989 before consulate of SU. And here from Kraków[4] Unfortunately I don't know the status of the copyright of those pictures. Perhaps somebody has his own personal photos, I think the slogan is still present on some old buildings in my city. Anyway it would be good illustration to the article. --Molobo 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mongolia

• Does Mongolian People's Republic belong here? Red Army involvement + long-time puppet state. I don't know if it would fall into your precise definition of belligerent military occupation, though Canuckle 16:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are significant WP:RS to treat it as a Soviet occupation, it belongs here. It doesn't really matter if any Wikipedian considers or doesn't consider it an occupation, as Wikipedia doesn't do original research. Digwuren 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have found the following sources, based on which I would say that it is appropriate to discuss Mongolia here:

• Foreign Affairs by Council on Foreign Relations, page 150, volume 24 on 1945–1946, complied at the University of California, published in 1991;
• State and Society in 21st Century. China: Crisis, Contention and Legitimation by Peter Hays Gries and Stanley Rosen, page 218, published in 2004 clearly expects that its readers are familiar with the concept of Soviet occupation of Mongolia, which, in turn, implies that in the relevant scholarly circles, it has wide recognition:

“ The British, who were in control of India, had interests in Tibet, but nothing occurred remotely corresponding to the Soviet occupation of Mongolia. ”

• The Soviet Union: The Incomplete Superpower by Paul Dibb, page 21, published in 1986.

It may also be of interest that there is a source explicitly denying Soviet occupation of Mongolia. In 1924, Marguerite Elton (Baker) Harrison did that in Red Bear or Yellow Dragon, page 206. Digwuren 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have added Mongolian People's Republic to the template. It might be a better idea to create a separate article on Soviet occupation of Mongolia, but I lack sufficient background to be able to create even a good stub. Digwuren 17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Without being able to provide good sources, I don't think that Mongolia belongs here. Acting under a strong influence and being a close ally is not the same as being occupied. If you want to call the MPR an occupied country, then you'd have to characterize Sükhbaatar as the first occupier... The Soviet Union didn't even exist yet at that time, which makes the claim even more absurd. --Latebird 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

google searches removed

• As Google searches are not legitimate references, I've removed these refs:Soviet Occupation of Czechoslovakia at google books, Soviet occupation of Hungary at google scholar, Soviet occupation of Hungary at google books, Soviet occupation of Austria at google books. They might, however, lead to good sources. Canuckle 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What a WP:POINTy page

The point of the page was to "prove" that, at the end of World War II, Eastern Europe was "occupied" while Western Europe was "liberated", although there was no material difference between the two. The page was a farrago of tenuously related or totally disconnected events, such as the Soviet liberation of Bornholm and Soviet war in Afghanistan. I removed irrelevant passages about Mongolia and Afghanistan, started passages about Greece, Italy, and France, and moved the page to the more appropriate title Allied occupation of Europe (since we have Category:Allied occupation of Europe, there should be some article about the phenomenon). --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by Ghirlandajo

Sadly Ghirlandajo has engaged in vandalism spree by creating several redirects, and stu articles so the Soviet Occupation title can't be used. I don't know enough Wiki editory to change it back, neverthless I tried, perhaps somebody better at this can do something so the article can have original name.--Molobo 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was extremly unconstructive move, particularly as it moved the article to a spot occupied by an unencyclopedic article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe (2nd nomination)) - I wonder if this was to support its AfDing? Sigh. Such obviously controversial moves should be discussed at talk, and proper procedures (WP:RM) should be followed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)