Talk:Soviet occupations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Article for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupations

For a previous discussion on this topic see Archive 1: WP:SYNT and the older Archive 1: The neutrality of this article is disputed --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New additions

Since the best thing for this article would be to cover all occupations by the Soviet Union, we should include brief occupations in wars too. I have already added Korea and Bulgaria.

The following occupations in Asia by Soviet Russia in the 1920s are also missing:

Other possible occupations, need research.

There's still a lot more to write. --Pudeo⺮ 11:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed occupation of Russia --Ioakinf 15:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is commonly accepted that former Soviet republics has been forcefully reoccupied by the Red Army in spite of previous declarations by Lenin about rights of all nations for self-determination. This probaly should be better reflected in article Russian Civil War. However nothing precludes creation of separate articles, such as Occupation of the Northern Caucasus by Red Army and so on.Biophys 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variations

'although it has been claimed that the Western Allies tacitly recognised some of these at the Yalta conference, it is a policy of most Western countries to deny the legality of these occupations. This practice started with Stimson Doctrine, but has since the World War II become a well-recognised principle of international law' - unfortunally this isn't true. Western countries recognize all consequences of these occupations exept Afghanistan at the Yalta conference, Helsinki Accords, United Nations and etc. --Ioakinf 16:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This just needs to be properly sourced.Biophys 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Ioakinf familiarize yourself with the concepts of de jure and de facto recognition principles of the international law. At Yalta conference the Western democracies did recognize the consequences of these occupations de facto, never de jure. The only Western governments recognizing for example the occupation of Baltic states de jure were Sweden, Finland and Australia for a short period in the 70-s.--Termer 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think situation with Baltic states distinguished from other Eastern Eroupe. Baltic States were inclduded in another state (USSR) by force. In Hungary in Poland and etc. Soviets creates communist regims and supported them by force. These regimes were recognized by West, participates in international organizations and agreements and nowdays Polish goverment is successor of communist Polish goverment (quite a big difference with Baltic states and Russia, where new states were created. --Ioakinf 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All three Baltic states have a documented continuum of sovereignty with their first period of independence and (except by Russia) are considered continuous. There are numerous examples of pre-WWII treay-based relations/rights/obligations starting up right where they left off. From an Eastern European geopolitical standpoint, instruments of occupation such as deportations did not differentiate between the USSR and (what became) Warsaw Pact territory. There's not as much difference as you might think.
   Also, the USSR itself was flexible in its sovereignty arrangements, the constitution insisting all states were sovereign willing participants (however, nationalist movements were purged and crushed); on the other hand the USSR used constitutional "sovereignty" of SSRs as a basis to lobby that some of its SSRs were sovereign enough to merit their own U.N. memberships (when the USSR saw opportunities to stack the deck in its favor).
   Russia is the only special case. The treaty creating the CIS established the CIS as the replacement for the organization formerly known as the USSR, marking the USSR's official dissolution. It was Russia's choice to consider itself the legal successor state of the USSR and inheritor of its rights and obligations. That was a deliberate decision. (Along with the choice of the "CIS" contingent to dissolve the U.S.S.R. and gain their individual sovereignty.) PētersV 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm? How about American occupations?

This seems like a fun article to me, why not create similar ones for every country? American occupations comes to mind first, but then there's also British occupations, perhaps French occupations too! Tons of overlaps with "military history of.." will be expected, but at least we will have an occupation section for every goddamn country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami888 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A perfect example of the moral equivalence trap. Just for starters, the American occupation of Germany and Austria in the wake of WWII brought the Marshall Plan and the Wirtschaftswunder, while the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe brought — awww, forgeddaboutit. Turgidson (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just for starters, Soviet occupations brought FREEDOM for Eastern Europe and PEACE while American occupations brought SLAVERY and MIND CONTROL, of which you are an example. :D I rest my case though, if you are uninterested in the process and consequences of American occuaption of West Germany, tons of other people will be. By the way, notice the absense of "German occupations" or "Japanese occuaptions" articles. Moral equivalence my ass. :D 155.246.121.195 07:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys, please let me remind you that WP is not a place for soapboxing. Thanks!--Termer 07:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's our anonymous friend from Stevens Institute again. "Freedom"? Pieces of paper which said where you could and couldn't go in what was once your own country. "Peace"? Suppression and subjugation. And exactly how many tens of millions did the U.S. deport to Arctic labor camps from the territories it occupied? Where are the mass graves in the Alaskan tundra? Let's not imply similarity in title reflects similarity of action. The notion that America is an evil empire is a popular one, however, ultimately tragically uninformed. "Rest" your case? In the USSR you'd simply be shot. Don't spit on the freedoms you enjoy. —PētersV (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed that tirade from our anonymous friend. Aw, shucks, so now I know — I'm a victim of MIND CONTROL! Gee whiz, where is my tin-foil hat? — Turgidson (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


The propaganda of the victors, becomes the history of the vanquished.

[edit] Nazi occupation

Ok, ok, but this shouldn't be a red link.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)