Talk:Soviet occupations/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

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. Cowman109Talk 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)

Of course Estonian SSR was not sovereign within the USSR. But EE countries, like Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany were. You can call them Satellite States but this is not the same notion as the occupied territory. Read what I said above. --Irpen 00:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good we've settled at least one issue. Let's move on.
Do you affirm or deny that there are reputable sources discussing an event which they call Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia and which didn't end until 1990? Digwuren 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you affirm or deny that there are reputable sources that describe the post-war history of CZ without stating that it was under occupation? How do you interpret this? As far as Estonia is concerned. It was occupied, IMO, in 1940. However, it was not under occupation until 1990. It was part of the USSR a republic no more and no less occupied than Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan. You cannot occupy your own territory. Don't twist my words. --Irpen 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I interpret such sources according to the context, and do not let pass a chance to remind you that you haven't actually answerred my question. Digwuren 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Because your question had a logical fallacy. I am not playing these games. That something is sourced does not make it automatically compliant with wikipedia's policies. WP:RS and WP:NPOV are equally important. That Soviet troops crossed into CZ on some date is a fact. That the entire post-war period can be characterized as occupation is a judgment. There is much more scrutiny to passing judgments to WP as unquestionable truths than passing facts even if both are sourced. If there are reputable sources about CZ history that do not use the term occupation it means they did not find it necessary to pass such judgment. It may be OK, depending on the context, to say in the text that the source A considers this to be an occupation. But titles appear without annotations and cannot include terms that are not reasonably universally agreed upon. --Irpen 01:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is with the term 'occupation'. Some are taking it to mean 'complete military and political control' while others are using something more like 'extensive political influence and military threat'. The latter definition essentially leading to the 'occupied' areas being the entire Eastern Bloc. Yet another definition (just above) would say that countries actually subsumed into the USSR ceased to exist, and therefor were not 'occupied'. It is all semantic sparring to redefine the scope of the article. The apparent intent of this article is to cover all aspects of Soviet political influence and control over Eastern Europe since WWII. Can we toss the term 'occupation', with its multiple disputed meanings, and rework the article along those lines? --CBD 11:29, 13 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)
I'd accept the above sources from Digwuren as verifying that the West viewed it as a Soviet occupation and appropriate for inclusion in the article. However, does anyone know if the USSR maintained troops in the country post-WWII? If not, then the content needs to reflect that a la "While Westerner observers described it as occupation, no Soviet bases existed in the country" or somesuch. Canuckle 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't have the background knowledge. The sources above are from a few searches conducted using a machine; I don't even have these books. But I have put in requests for expansion, so hopefully, the article will become improved by somebody who understands the topic. Digwuren 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
My impression, based on what little I gathered from searching for these sources, is that Mongolia was between two potential agressors -- Soviet Union and Republic of China -- and determined Soviet Union to be the lesser evil. This would make likely that there were Soviet bases in Mongolia, commonly rationalised as providing defence against India and later, PRC, but this is speculation. Even so, I would be surprised if that's not the case. Digwuren 00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The point may be moot by now, at least as far as this article goes, so just for the sake of discussion: I'm not sure if those two sources (pending actual review) mean that "the west" considered Mongolia occupied. but at least "some sources" do, and I'd be interested to hear their arguments. I'm pretty sure that there were at least some soviet troups in Mongolia up until into the eighties, and of course an occupation requires such troups. But does the mere stationing of foreign troups automatically make it an occupation? By that logic, Germany and many other countries would still be under "US occupation" today. --Latebird 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

google searches removed

Right. Such searches, if included at all, should be on the talk page. Digwuren 00:37, 13 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)

Ghirla brings up a good point. Perhaps we should discuss the purpose of this article, as there have been complaints of POV issues in the past and it does seem to be unreasonably biased against Russia at a glance. Perhaps changing the article to be focused more on the allied occupation of Europe would be more informative? Cowman109Talk 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read the AFD. "Allied occupation of Europe" is a fiction invented by Petri Krohn. This article is about force-backed Soviet influence towards its neighbours. The specific ways of occupation, and in some cases, the times of entering and withdrawal, vary, but the topic is solidly about Soviet aggression.
If discussion about Soviet aggression is "anti-Russian", so be it. History is history. Digwuren 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
History is not your history. You stand against three editors here and call their points a "fiction". Very "nice".Av0id3r 23:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Av0id3r 23:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Forced name changes by Ghirlandajo

Sadly Ghirlandajo has engaged in forced name spree by creating several redirects, and stub 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)
See above, at least four editors are against your proposals. Av0id3r 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Move protection

The article is now protected from moves. This is to stop the move war, and is not an endorsement of a particular title/purpose/capital-T Truth. The title Allied occupation of Europe seems to have been the preferred title of a single editor attempting to repurpose the page into a replacement for a deleted page of the same title. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there were three and now there are four. "Occupation zones" documented term doesn't have two separate meanings for two sides. 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Av0id3r (talk • contribs)
This means that the current status is:

1. There's Soviet occupation. It's a link to here. 2. This page here, Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe is roughly what the article's scope was, except that it unnecessarily restricts the scope to Eastern Europe. This tends to leave out Mongolia, and may leave out Estonia, which is sometimes considered to be in Northern Europe instead.

I believe the article should be moved back to Soviet occupation, to match its contents. I've never done a WP:RM, though, so help is welcome; however, I'll try to read up on the process. Digwuren 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it should be moved to either Allied occupation of Europe to represent both sides or to "Soviet eliberation" to represent only Russian side. Av0id3r 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think by creating a disamb page Ghirlandajo blocked our ability to restore original title. Untill that page is deleted we can't restore the old name. --Molobo 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't, but an administrator can, if we request a move through WP:RM. Digwuren 22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Europe or world?

Before any RM, let's consider pros and cons of having this aricle limited to Europe, versus talking about Asia (Mongolia, Afganistan, possibly Sachalin, etc.).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"World" contradicts to my suggestion. As for the Europe we should add Polish piece of the Eastern Prussia for certain... Av0id3r 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is about occupation by Soviet Union. Poland was not part of the SU.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, because Allied occupation of Europe redirects here. I mean, Poland occupies a part of the Eastern Prussia since then until now. Av0id3r 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Then I'd suggest trying to do something with the redirect (now nominated for RfD). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe (2nd nomination).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
As seen above at least two four editors are against your proposal.Av0id3r 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My understanding: Soviet occupation is the scholarly term, and most of the time, it refers to Soviet occupations in Europe, but it is also sometimes referred to Mongolia and Kurils and other non-European Soviet occupations. If we go by the name, non-European occupations should be included. If we go by the usual concept, they should not. Being an inclusionist, I prefer the non-European Soviet occupations treated, too, but I can see the point of discussing them in a separate article.
Furthermore, it's important to realise that what historians call Soviet occupation took various forms, depending on the region. The Baltic states were annexed, but Hungary, for example, was kept "sovereign" even though it couldn't do anything political without Soviet approval. It might have been about plausible deniability. I've also read somewhere that the Soviets attempted to use this faux sovereignty to get more seats in the United Nations, but that it didn't work too well. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the source.
As for Allied occupation of Europe, this one should be speedily deleted. It's clearly a recreation of deleted material. Digwuren 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You read only one-sided historians. Go read Russian ones. They widely use "eliberation" in these cases, not "occupation". Av0id3r 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The Russian use of "eliberation" can be included in the text of the article, if reliably sourced. Canuckle 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's probably a typo, and Av0id3r meant "liberation".
It is true that Russian Federation, as did its predecessor, Soviet Union, engages in denying its history. That's not surprise to me. (Right now, there are no less than Russian history textbooks on my desk, by the way.) But this does not mean Wikipedia should give obvious propaganda full faith and credit; merely reporting it is enough, and even that only if it's notable (which appears to be the case here). Digwuren 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the truth is that Baltic states are engaged in removing monuments to liberators from Nazism and praising Nazis in their propaganda.Av0id3r 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are completely mistaken. In the case of Latvia (which I am most familiar with), there is a treaty in place which prevents either destroying monuments of the other on their soil. I would be the first to raze several, starting with this monument in Riga, but agreements are agreements. So sad you believe the press without bothering to verify. BTW, as for true Latvian fascists, they hated the Germans with a passion. To suggest that after more than 7 centuries of living like peasants while the Germans lorded over them would instill love for the German Nazi invaders is simply a ludicrous contention. Again, spend some time on history, not on Pravda. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I presume you have misplaced your trust in Russian mass media, which I know to have made such claims. Be advised that these particular claims have no basis in fact. For example, did you know that the famous theatrical play Adolf is an anti-fascist drama? Digwuren 23:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I presume you have misplaced your trust in Baltic mass media, which I know to have made such claims. Be advised that these particular claims have no basis in fact. Go to that article to speak on it. Av0id3r 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Я могу читать газеты на русском языке. Можете ли Вы читать по-эстонски, по-латвийски или по-литовски? Дигвурен 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Go to Russian language Wiki. Av0id3r 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
One day, it might happen. But today is not the day. Digwuren 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
So, you're also in favor of one side... "There was no occupation by the allies" but there were "occupation zones". Strange...Av0id3r 23:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing the scope.
What you're talking about is the Allied Powers' joint occupation of Germany and Austria. (See Allied occupation of Germany and Allied-administered Austria.) The fiction part is where Petri Krohn claimed that these joint actions made up an "Allied occupation of Europe". That's not the case; furthermore, as the Cold War broke out, the former Allied Powers quickly split up into three halves. Digwuren 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You call this a "fiction", I don't believe you...They were allied so their actions were ccordinated, Soviet Union was not "against them" it was their ally.Av0id3r 23:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer Soviet occupation to be the main article. Not only is it the simplest title, but if non-European examples are found to be not appropriate or conversely to be included, that specific content is easily moved. Canuckle 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And I prefer "Soviet eliberation" as do Russian historians. But also iet support 3 other editors who prefer it to be Allied occupation of Europe. Av0id3r 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
But I added "Soviet occupation is a Western term" to the lead of the article to define it as a Western viewpoint. The use is verified by reliable sources. Russian historians' viewpoints can be covered in article. You have not discussed that option. Canuckle 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Alas, that is still biased -- towards major countries. What about the position of Lithuania or Czech Republic? I would say their view is far more significant than anything "Western"; the main significance of Western sources is that most of the academic research of these occupations was done in the West, until the Autumn of Nations. Digwuren 03:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood the purpose of discussion. It's understandable, and forgivable, as you're a new editor, of course. But allow me to explain that discussion is not a vote, and Russian sources are reasonably discounted where evidence of clear historical revisionism can be found. Digwuren 23:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Your purpose to beat Russia I understood very well. They should not be discounted when lear historical revisionism from Baltic media tries to find its heaven in English Wikipedia.Av0id3r 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am saddened by your misinterpretation of my motives. I am a pacifist; beating anybody does not interest me. I am, however, fascinated by history, and I care of its accurate representation. Digwuren 00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I'm hereby requesting that the page be moved back to Soviet occupation, where it was before Ghirlandajo disruptively and irreversably moved it here. Digwuren 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

However, Piotrus has expressed concern that another title with a narrower scope might be advantageous. I didn't use {{moveoptions}} because I am not certain what his recommendation is, but I suspect that it's either Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe or a variation of thereof. Please feel free to convert to {{moveoptions}} as applicable. Unfortunately, we're a bit on a clock here, as there are only about two days until the page is scheduled to be featured in WP:DYK. Accordingly, I ask everybody to discuss as fast as can be reasonably done. Digwuren 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather get it right with a strong consensus, possibly with peer review, than rush to meet an arbitrary WP:DYK deadline. Canuckle 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern. However, I also point out that DYK's main purpose is to get attention to the article, and thus, potential new contributors. Therefore, I believe it's better to figure out a quick good compromise now and after the DYK has done its job, try to forge the perfect outcome, than to hope to get the best with whom we have, and miss the DYK. Or, to put in other words: DYK will bring in more people, and more people will mean stronger consensus. Digwuren 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This circus cannot be featured at the main page, even at the DYK section. Such articles at main page would bring Wikipedia into disrepute. --Irpen 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that you do not intend to coöperate in improving this article, and instead prefer disruption, in whatever ways may be available, to avoid this page getting the DYK attention? Digwuren 03:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not what I am saying. I am glad to cooperate in development of the articles whose encyclopedic scope I can comprehend. The pre-war occupations dumped together with the running over the countries in the course of the war (totally different and unrelated things) with Mongolia and Afghanistan on top is not the encyclopedic scope. It is pure and simple WP:SYNT specifically prohibited by the policies. --Irpen 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you then please counsel Ghirlandajo and ask him refrain from engaging in these circus antics, it is very disruptive to Wikipedia. Martintg 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stay on topic, Martin, and avoid offensive statements. --Irpen 03:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If that's offensive, I will need to ask that you please counsel Ghirlandajo, and ask him refrain from offensive statements. Digwuren 03:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I would counsel you to stay on topic. --Irpen 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I support the move. It is apparent, that the article covers more then just occupations of Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, e.g. Baltic States, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Austria and Germany are not in Eastern Europe. Sander Säde 08:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Mongolia

I would propose that we leave this article at the current title (Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe) and move the "Mongolia" and "Afghanistan" sections to Soviet occupation of Mongolia and Soviet war in Afghanistan respectively.

If someone wants to create an umbrella article called Soviet occupation, they are welcome to try although I am not convinced that it is an encyclopedic topic unless you want to consider Military interventions of the United States an encyclopedic topic. Maybe these umbrella articles could be lists but I'm just not sure what there is to say at such a high level that is not POV, OR and WP:SYNTH.

--Richard 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point. The United States has intervened militarily in South Korea, South Vietnam, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Kosovo, Somalia and Iraq. Lumping all those together in one article Military interventions of the United States would make little sense IMHO except as a list. Yes, they are all military interventions but they happened in very different places, very different times and very different circumstances. There is little commonality amongst them except for American use of military power and, from some perspectives, American imperialism. I think that Soviet occupations suffers from the same problem. --Richard 03:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
While I have nothing against the creation of Military interventions of the United States, it is true that in the most common usage, Afghanistan is counted out. Even so, this usage is of "Soviet occupation".
How about moving this to Soviet occupation, and replacing Afghanistan war entry with a {{seealso}} or {{for}} link? Digwuren 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedic usefulness of List of Soviet Occupations for the period of 1918-1991 as well as the List of U.S. Occupations for their entire history is a separate topic. However, these would be WP:LIST pages, not articles, and the current bizarre page has little to do with that. --Irpen 03:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Irpen but I want to understand why he think this page is "bizarre". Would it be acceptable if we deleted the "See also" section which is composed of "Mongolia" and "Afghanistan"? My entire point above is that it is bizarre to link Eastern Europe to Mongolia and Afghanistan except as an attempt to assert that the Soviet Union was an aggressor nation that pursued an expansionist foreign policy by occupying neighboring countries. Well, it that may very well have been true but this article seems the wrong place to make such an assertion. I prefer a limited scope as a way to keep the article focused and coherent. --Richard 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that someone has narrowed the Soviet occupations down to "Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe". I guess thats fine, just that we're going to need another article than that would cover all Soviet takeovers, Afghanistan being the last one in the row. Thanks!--Termer 06:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, it seems that military history is not your strongest side. Therefore even though this is not related to the article, please allow me to help you out here. If an article as such is going to be written like suggested regarding the US, it should start at least with Mexican-American War, at the time the US occupied Mexico including Mexico City. The occupied Northern territories of Mexico became according to Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the American Southwest including California.--Termer 06:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that Baltic states are considered to be in Northern Europe, according to UN classification, not Eastern Europe. I think this article should be an "umbrella article", covering all Soviet occupations, with sub-articles where needed. This would be best solution for a reader - to get a quick one-glance overview of all Soviet occupations and browse sub-articles for in-depth information if needed. Also, this would be the place to explain general considerations and reasons for those occupations. In my opinion, the article should be moved back to Soviet occupations, perhaps rename to something easier to understand - no ideas what it could be, though. Sander Säde 07:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganized article into chronological order

This article continues to be a rolling disaster. The idea of organizing both European and non-European occupations partly by "alone and in cooperation with Allies" on one dimension and then "European and non-European" in another dimension is just plain awful. (Apologies to whoever thought of that approach but it really is awful.)

I have reorganized the content by approximate chronological order (difficult to do well because of overlapping time periods). This article is now ready to be named Soviet military interventions or Soviet occupations or whatever. I suggest that we rename this article to one of those two titles and then start a new one that focuses on the topic of Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Let's stop fighting over the title and scope of the article and just agree to have two articles, one on each topic.

--Richard 06:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It was I who thought of that approach, and I fully recognise the taxonomic problems. (For example, a case -- perhaps not good, but at least plausible -- might be made that the Kuril Islands were taken from Japan as a part of coöperation of the Allied Powers.)
I mainly did extract the "non-European" part in anticipation that it might need to be moved to a separate article; and that will of course be easier to do if these sections are grouped together. However, another issue at play here is that of common usage: in most discussion of Soviet occupations, it's mainly the European occupations that are discussed. It might be due to cultural bias by the Western nations, but so it is. It is also probably be influenced by the non-European Soviet meddling being involved in quite a number of less of "cold" Cold War incidents, instead bursting into Korean War and Vietnam War. Digwuren 15:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
What this is going to be renamed to would still be an article, I assume. Sorry, but I oppose the proposed names then. The article needs to have a coherenet and encyclopedic scope, a topic. Totally unrelated events dumped together does not make a valid topic. They can make up a list. If we have List of people named John we can have List of Soviet invasions I guess. But not the article. related invasions can be grouped together into a coherent article, like Occupation of Baltic States, but not the unrelated ones. --Irpen 07:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Correction. We do not have "List of people named John" anymore. See this. Here goes. --Irpen 07:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, Irpen, I agree with you and have said so above. However, what I'm trying to do is to get free of this desire on the part of some editors to include Mongolia and Afghanistan in the article. Either we take those two countries out and keep the title or we keep them in and change the title. Last time I looked, neither Mongolia nor Afghanistan were in Eastern Europe. Unless, of course, you want to call Mongolia "Far Eastern Europe" and Afghanistan "Extremely Southeastern Europe".
--Richard 07:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Irpen I'm sorry to hear that you don't consider the Eastern Europe under the Soviet regime and terror have an encyclopedic scope. So the stolen 50 years of freedom is an insignificant fact in your opinion? Do I need to say that you're wrong? Thanks!--Termer 07:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Termer, please cut the demagogy. The encyclopedic events have to be properly presented. There is no more coherence here than in the would-be Polish invasions article, pasting together the occupation of Galicia in 1918, Vilnius in 1919, half of Ukraine in 1920 and Tesin in 1939 and Smolensk and Moscow in the 17th century. No matter how I "order" these invasion, chronologically or alphabetically, they are not adding up to an article except for the History of Poland.
Richard, this is why moving won't make this a good article. The scope of this masterpiece is faulty from the inception. Check talk Occupations of Latvia for another unrepairable article. Articles started with an ax to gring are usually unimprovable from their inception due to their scope. You cannot build a good article by pasting the American Revolution and the American Civil War unless you are writing a History of the United States which would then also include a lot of other stuff. --Irpen 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard I'd hate to point out this once again but the title has just gone out of sync due to revert warring. But I agree in general, we should make this one either about "Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe" and make another one "Soviet occupation" or simply restore the title. Thanks--Termer 07:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Irpen, please also consider reading the responses to you instead of just posting. I have already said longtime ago that there wouldn't be anything wrong with making an article Polish invasions. At the same time I can't share your opinion it would add up to History of Poland only. Even though it should be obvious,please let me point it out, once we're talking about an invasion, it's not going to add up to history of one country only.--Termer 07:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple: Does the term "Soviet occupation" exist? Apparently it does.[5] Does the term require wikipedia article? Many think it does. Does these sections which are controversial need to be discussed? Sure! If some sources claim it was occupation, and some think it wasn't, it needs to be pointed out in the article. Read WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR please. Suva 07:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some sources" saying something does not always add up to this being an proper title for the article. Read above about the difference between a sourced fact and a sourced judgment. --Irpen 08:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Google Scholar. 5200 matches. First ten have Soviet occupation in Afganistan, Germany, Estonia, Poland. And then we have a very cited scientific monography on occupations here, that extensively discusses Soviet occupations. Now, can you please provide any sources in modern Western scientific history/politics journals or books that refute the occupations? In my opinion we are dealing with your WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you have so far failed to give any reasons or valid sources. Sander Säde 08:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave you valid reasons if only you were reading not only yourself at the talk page. I am not usually in the habit to dig out my diffs for the edits made earlier at the very page of the discussion, but I am making a rare exception for you.[6] --Irpen 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And in what way is "Soviet occupations" not "generally agreed upon"? There are no scientific sources refuting it, there are tens of thousands matches that use it. You not agreeing with it does not mean that the topic is controversial and refuted. I do not like the fact that there were some Estonians, who collaborated with Nazis, but I have not tried to remove sourced facts (mainspace diffs, please, if you accuse me of that). You may not like that Soviet Union occupied countries, but why don't you behave like a wikipedian should? WP:NPOV does not mean we should avoid controversial subjects, it says "articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." This article represents views that are published by reliable sources. If you find reliable sources contradicting those in article, then add those views represented in those sources. And if anyone complains, I will be first to agree with you and support keeping that material. Sander Säde 08:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained above that that non-universal agreement is displayed in the fact that there are dedicated sources on the topic that describe the post-war history of the EE counties without the term occupation. --Irpen 09:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And can you please show that there are a considerable number of such sources (preferably in modern scientific journals), compared to the sources that use it? I seriously doubt, that you can find such sources in greater number then sources calling it occupation? These discussions about occupation/not occupation have been going on in WP for a long time, and occupation deniers have always failed to back up their claims with decent sources. Sander Säde 10:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's start from freely available Columbia Encyclopedia that anyone can check:

--Irpen 10:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please note that Bartleby does not refute occupation, they just are not using that word. However, from Google Scholar we find plenty of sources for each country - and note that these are all exact phrase searches:
  • Soviet occupation of Poland: 52 matches (220 on Google Books)
  • Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia: 63 matches (434 on Google Books)
  • Soviet occupation of Hungary: 22 matches (88 on Google Books)
  • Soviet occupation of Romania: 3 matches (15 on Google Books)
With the exception of Romania, these all show that scientific community considers these to be an occupation. Unfortunately, it is near-impossible to do a negative search, ie find a source that claims these weren't occupations - ie, "soviet union" romania "not occupation" does not return any relevant matches. Sander Säde 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order is interesting. Another option is geographical - Eastern Europe - Baltic States - Central Asia (possibly including once-autonomous states that became soviet republics such as Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and then Mongolia and Afghanistan). I'm sorry to muddy the waters with consideration of Central Asia when I lack the expertise to say whether they clearly belong or not. Canuckle 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note the example of Soviet Empire. Yes the quality of the content needs work but it has a nice division into (1) Soviet republics, (2) the Communist bloc nations and (3) other countries. If that were applied here, you'd have some natural alignments for (1) Baltic States, (2) Eastern Europe and then (3) anywhere else militarily occupied by USSR. Canuckle 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose to move this article to Soviet occupations. I would urge those that oppose the move to allow the move and then submit the renamed article to WP:AFD. I am not personally committed to having an article titled Soviet occupations. I just want to separate that discussion from this current title which (IMO) is a valid encyclopedic title that needs further work.

Once I've moved the current article to Soviet occupations, I will then restart an article at this current title (Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe) which is essentially this article minus Mongolia and Afghanistan.

I will move the text on Mongolia to Soviet occupation of Mongolia. I don't plan to do anything with the Afghanistan text as it seems to be well covered already in existing articles. If there is any text about Afghanistan in this article that should be merged into another article, I trust that someone more knowledgeable than I will do it.

Germany who invaded the USSR and later in the war the USSR chased the invad

I will comment that, once these changes have been made, there is probably a lot more to be written on the topic of Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. The existence of the Warsaw Pact had a huge influence on the Cold War, on American domestic politics and military strategy (defending against a possible Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe), on European political, economic, social and cultural movements.

I note that there already are articles on the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War. However, this article could give us a chance to document the specific European implications of the Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. The Cold War was global in scope. This article can focus on the European geopolitical impact of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

I remember that in the 60s and 70s, there were scholars who served as apologists for the Soviet Union, citing the long-standing xenophobia of Russians and the traumas they suffered during the Napoleonic Wars, WWI and WWII as explanations for the Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe (essentially setting up a buffer zone against future invasions). This is not discussed in this article and should be.

I will also note that the Warsaw Pact is not mentioned in this article. The Cold War was not mentioned until I introduced it recently as a section heading.

Please, let's move past arguments about the title and write a real article here.

--Richard 09:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposals - but let me stress once again, that Baltic States are not in Eastern Europe - and are more or less already covered by Occupation of Baltic states. [[|Sander Säde]] 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"Eastern Europe" and "Northern Europe" have 2 meanings. one is geographical and another one -political. In the context "Eastern Europe" means just countries previously dominated by USSR. Now, even though geographically Baltic states belong to Northern Europe, to be more precise -Northeastern Europe, in political context they're still "Eastern Europe" and "Northern Europe" in the context would be Scandinavian countries and Finland. That's the way the terms "Eastern Europe" and "Northern Europe" are commonly used in English, in the "Western Europe" and Northern America.--Termer 16:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the creation of the article that would have the EE and Afghanistan pasted together. They are not connected in any way except that both were conducted by the USSR but under completely different circumstances and different times. The are history articles in Wikipedia as well as narrower Military history articles where events connected with one country are duly covered. We do not arbitrary paste the George Washington article and George Bush article into American president named George article. --Irpen 09:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as long as we're on the subject of your opposition, let's consider these issues first:
  • Do you oppose the article as a whole on principle?
  • Do you oppose any article that uses the term Soviet occupation?
  • Do you oppose any article on the topic of Soviet occupation?
  • Do you oppose any article that says Soviets committed military occupations?
  • Do you oppose any article that lists Soviet-committed military occupations?
  • Do you oppose any article that says Soviet occupations lasted for decades?
  • Do you oppose any article that links begin of Soviet occupations to the World War II?
  • Do you oppose any article that links end of Soviet occupations to the Autumn of Nations?
Thanks in adance for your precise answers. Digwuren 15:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about I just delete Mongolia, Afghanistan, the Baltic States and the Kuril Islands from this article and we agree that anyone who insists on lumping them together with Eastern Europe is invited to create an article under a title of their choosing which may be subject to an AFD debate if and when such an article is created? Thus, you do not agree to the creation of such an article. You simply agree that those topics do not belong in this article. One proviso: I think we need to mention the Baltic States briefly in this article. Even if they are not "in Eastern Europe", I think the popular notion (at least in the U.S.) considered everything west of the Ukraine to be "Eastern Europe". I would insert a short comment to that effect with a link to Occupation of Baltic states.
--Richard 09:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Soviet occupation of Baltic states definitely belongs here, as pointed out by Termer. It may be a good idea to use Eastern bloc instead of Eastern Europe, accordingly. Digwuren 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard, let's put it this way. I object to the article were Romania and Afghanistan are lumped together for the reason explained above no matter how such article is created, through a move or anew. Of course Military history of the USSR or History of the USSR are exempted from such objection. Those military operations do belong there. If someone wants to create List of Soviet military operations page, I won't mind as long as this article is categorized as List. Even after list of all Johns and Jacks are deleted we have plenty of meaningless lists. List of massacres, List of invasions, etc are read by no one except those who edit war there.

Now, re inclusion of Baltic states into this post-war occupation article. I don't see them here at all and not because they are Northern Europe. Baltic states were occupied (illegally) in 1940. Following the occupation those countries were annexed and integrated to the USSR. Being a part of the country, its administrative unit (Soviet Republic in this case) is a different concept than being an occupied territory (Occupied Germany). Also, a year earlier (1939) the USSR annexed much of interwar Poland and attached those territories to Ukraine and Belarus. These territories became part of the USSR at about the same time as Baltic States. Was this done with a solid basis as far as the international law is concerned? Then all these lands were occupied by Germany and its allies. Next was the USSR restoring its control over its pre-war territory. How was capturing Brest (former Poland) different from capturing Tallinn? Why one is "occupation" and the other is not? In the course of the war the Soviets moved further west to defeat the Nazis and their allies, something that they certainly were entitled to do by all laws of war. They also overran countries that were simply conquered by Germany (Czechs and Poles). At the times of war, the military controlled the everyday life and it is correct to call this regime an occupation. We can also say that Soviets installed puppet loyal governments to ensure its influence for the decades to come. With these governments SU concluded the agreements about stationing the armed forces and their status. Except for deplorable Budapest and Prague incidents, Soviet troops were confined to bases rather the running the countries everyday affairs with the latter being left to the local governments. Troops stationed in the closed bases in accordance to the international agreement is not an occupation. Now, some sources consider it to be such. We can mention it but as a source's POV, not a universally accepted truth.

The article about Soviet coming to dominate the Eastern Europe through a network of satellite states should by its scope cover those states to stay on topic.

I appreciate that this topic finally got an attention of a serious editor who is willing to commit his time and effort to make this encyclopedic. I hope to hear your response in addition to the same old that would inevitably follow. --Irpen 09:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion of what "the univesally accepted truth" is, can you provide a cite to support it? Martintg 11:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess we should delete the article for all. Soviets didn't occupy anyone. They liberated the world from Nazis and also liberated some countries from their statehood. Also I propose the rename of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to Union of Soviet Socialist Liberators. Suva 11:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Supporting the move, the title should be restored according to the content.--Termer 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal by Digwuren

Here's a proposal:

  • Soviet occupation should contain an overview of the long-term Soviet occupations in the Eastern bloc. This would include the Baltic states, Poland and Czechoslovakia, but not the WWII-era short-lived Finnish Democratic Republic or Afghanistan. It would, however, link to List of Soviet military occupations, and Soviet occupation in Asia. In particular, the article's lead should carefully explain that the article discusses only the most commonly scholarly discussed cases of occupation, and that there are "border cases" not discussed.
  • List of Soviet military occupations would be a WP:LIST, and contain all Soviet military occupations, with one-sentence overviews.
  • Since there is currently no Soviet occupation of Mongolia, the little summary we have here would be moved into this article, and serve as the basis for further improvement.
  • Soviet occupation in Asia would contain the Kuril/Afghanistan/Mongolia entries.
Variation of the proposal
  • Soviet occupation would be a redirect to Soviet occupation in Europe, where the European Soviet occupations would be overviewed. Digwuren 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Check WP:SOAP. Besides, Soviet occupation in Asia that would dump together totally unrelated Kurils, Afganistan and Mongolia is Digwuren's invention and belongs to his sandbox, not the article space. --Irpen 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I decided to be bold and delete all sections that are unrelated to Eastern Europe. The deleted sections include the Baltic states, Norway, Finland, Mongolia, Afghanistan and the Kuril Islands.

Although Irpen is opposed to the existence of any article which combines the deleted text with the text about Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, I am not of the same mind. I believe that there could be a reasonable, encyclopedic article titled Soviet expansionism which could cover all the topics that were in this article before my mass delete.

--Richard 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In the context of this article the Baltic states should be included. Ostap 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't just delete them, as, even if they will be determined unsutiable for this article, they'll have to go somewhere else. It's easy to delete later; not as easy to recreate.
Instead, offer another grouping. Digwuren 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, then I propose that this entire article be moved to Soviet expansionism and then only the Northern and Eastern European parts be brought back to the current title ([[

Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe]]). There may well be an AFD discussion about Soviet expansionism but I think this is the best way to move forward.

--Richard 18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Richard, feel free to be bold but please don't edit WP recklessly! Please consider waiting for a consensus first before proceeding with major changes. This article has suffered from disruptive editing, has been messed up completely, therefore lets take our time here. I don't object the idea making this article about Europe, calling it accordingly and making another one, the list of Soviet occupations like suggested. But at first we should wait and see if that would be anything a consensus could be built on. Until it has not happened, I'm supporting the move back to the original title. Thanks--Termer 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe that editors would prefer to have this nonsense of an article purportedly regarding "post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe" with information regarding Mongolia, Kuril Islands and Afghanistan. Sure, Afghanistan is post-WWII, like 40 years post.
As it stands now, this article is an embarassment to Wikipedia and should be moved immediately to a different title or the Mongolia, Kuril Islands and Afghanistan text should be deleted. It's not that hard to resurrect old text. Just use the edit history. I understand that there are strong opinions here but this is just downright silly. Let's move the article elsewhere and at least get this title to make sense. You guys can debate the specific title (Soviet occupations vs. Soviet expansionism) or whether the article should even exist to your heart's content and at your leisure.
If there are no objections, I will move this article and then copy back the Northern and European parts back here after the move.
--Richard 19:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The current state of this article is due to Ghirlandajo's reckless move. We can't get out of this by doing more reckless moves. If you have the power of moving this move-protected article, please move the article to Soviet occupation so as to restore the status quo. We can continue discussing the proper further division after that. Digwuren 19:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I do have the power but I've been reluctant to use it without a consensus. I think we should agree that the article be moved to Soviet occupations for now with further discussion to continue once that's done. Once the move is doen, I will propose Soviet expansionism as being a better title (if only because Soviet occupations could also mean "jobs people had in the Soviet Union". Yes, it's a bit of a stretch but "occupations" does have more than one meaning.
As stated above, I also plan to re-create this article with a focus only on Northern and Eastern Europe because I believe that the Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe is a substantively different topic from the rest. The Eastern Europe article should be relatively detailed while the Soviet occupations article can be more of an overview as was suggested by someone else.
--Richard 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • to Richard, Everything makes sense in your latest posting. I support the solutions you have suggested above (at 20:56) --Termer 23:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I don't think the article is an "embarassment to Wikipedia" but more to the editors who engaged in the revert war without any attempt to find a consensus first and messed it up. Since there is no WP:DEADLINE I can't see any reasons to get into reckless editing here. I agree regarding Mongolia to certain extent since the country was a Soviet protectorate and it could be argued that the case differs from other hostile takeovers. The Kuril Islands and Afghanistan, the last one is the most relevant to the article in its original version as the last Soviet invasion and occupation in the row.--Termer 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors are embarassed by dumb or silly comments made on Talk Pages. Wikipedia is embarassed by dump or silly content in articles. We should all be embarassed in having an article titled X and then cover X, Y and Z where Y and Z are only tangentially related. --Richard 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a mess on the talk page regarding "Eastern Europe". "Eastern Europe" in the context is a political term that has nothing to do with geography. Like already mentioned, geographically the countries mentioned belong to Northern Europe like the Baltic States and the restin geography are placed in Central Europe. Please do not mix up political terms with geography. Thanks--Termer 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Scope

My intent in developing this article was creating an overview article of Soviet occupation the concept. By now, however, some of the entries have grown lather largish, and it might be prudent to start merging some of their content back to the main articles.

Can I get a stipulation that the article should be an overview article, and thorough examination of individual cases would be done in separate articles? Digwuren 16:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved article here per Talk Page

OK, once again, I was bold and moved the article to Soviet occupations since that seemed to be the consensus (with the possible exception of Ghirla). As I've stated, I do not like this title but I also think we should tackle one issue at a time so I figured we'd start by moving it here first. I'd really like to hear what other people think of moving this article to Soviet expansionism next.

Also, I copied Irpen's last revision to Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. As I've stated above, there needs to be more text written about the Warsaw Pact with a link to that article as well as some text written about the Cold War.

There's a lot more work to be done but hopefully my edits and moves have provided a more stable base for us to work from instead of spending all our time edit warring and jawboning on the Talk Page.

--Richard 00:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as this article is concerned, this is merely a soapbox from its inception that prevented it from becoming an encyclopedic article by its very design. Now, that it is out of the way, we can concentrate on the valid concept of the Soviet geopolitical expansion in Europe in the aftermath of the WWII. Thanks Richard. --Irpen 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Richard. This step by step process is the best way to proceed. Soviet expansionism is worth some consideration, as it would span both pre and post war periods and geography too. We already have an article on American hegemony, so Irpen and Ghirla shouldn't continue this disruptive behaviour. But let's go baby steps first and whip this article in shape before doing another rename. So can this page be unprotected too now. Martintg 01:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Caucasus, Iran, Central Asia?

  • Now that the constant name-changing has stopped - and at risk of appearing to be pushing a point - what about these areas? Soviet troops occupied northern Iran temporarily post-WWII, the presence in Caucasus was termed an occupation : In hindsight, the Caspian Region and Central Asia suffered economically from the Russian and later the Soviet occupation through its distorted development. [7] In Central Asia, George Wheeler's article says: Wheeler’s writing focused on the history of Central Asia from the time of the Russian conquest of the region in the mid-nineteenth century to Soviet occupation of Central Asia in the 20th century. Wheeler’s work is notable because he was one of the few scholars working to promote Central Asian Studies at a time when the field was in decline due to travel and research restrictions Soviet authorities imposed on academics. Wheeler engaged in the debates that raged in Central Asia Studies during the Cold War: what was the nature of Soviet colonialism in Central Asia and how was Central Asian ethnic identity formed. and another here: "During the Soviet occupation of the region since the early 20th century, Central Asia remained completely cut off from the outside world and isolated from world events, as the USSR had closed the Central Asian borders with Iran, Afghanistan, China, and Turkey" [8]. I'd like to hear your views. Canuckle 01:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is requested that immediate edits be made to this protected page.

  • There's a teeny typo in the first sentence. I'd fix it but there's a block on edits Canuckle 01:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • specifically the word 'and' is spelled "ande" Canuckle 01:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Canuckle 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Richard 05:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The chapter Cold War in the article is misleading and strictly speaking -factually incorrect. Cold War was going on between USSR and the Western powers, not between USSR and the "Eastern Europe" where the war got pretty "hot" during the Prague Spring and Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Please remove the chapter, named according to the Western POV -Cold War as irrelevant and something that could be considered offending to the people that died fighting the Soviet invasion at that time. Thanks--Termer 05:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Done.--Richard 05:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Termer 05:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources

Haven't had the energy to read through again slowly in detail, however, all the usual sides are being drawn once again. How about we just stick to reputable sources which specifically address the "occupation" of X for period Y by the USSR. I trust actions like disruptively creating articles to redirect readers to inappropriate places will be censured and punished appropriately. Just another instance of dispute and disrupt without bringing any sources to the table. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos of the "Greeting Red Army" kind

Ie "Polish civilian population in Łódź greeting the Red Army forces liberating Poland from Nazi occupation, January 1945." What has this to do with soviet occupations? Nobody objects to kicking some Nazi ass, occupation starts when the "liberators" refuse to go home and start throwing over governments. Right now they feel VERY much out of place. --Alexia Death the Grey 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be common practice of making these kind of photographs, I vaguely remember there were similar photos about nazi military entering some country aswell. They are mostly staged though sometimes even at gunpoint. Suva 06:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed all political posters from the article at one point to keep it more neutral. But perhaps the Hungarian freedom fighter on the cover of Time magazine and the Polish cartoon should be restored than to keep the neutrality in balance? If it was up to me, I'd remove all the political posters from the article except the one that unites both parties(For your and our freedom)--Termer 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the pictures. If someone restores them please state clearly how they are relevant in other than trying to make an covert WP:POINT. However, Id like to see some pictures of soviet military bases in these countries. That would fit.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are the baltic states sections?

Where did they go!?--Alexia Death the Grey 05:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting page

I am unprotecting this article. Hopefully edit warring will stop. Please seek consensus on the Talk Page for controversial edits. Consider following the WP:BRD model. Good luck and happy editing. --Richard 05:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviet expansionism

Richard mentioned "Soviet expansionism" could provide context and meaning to the various occupations. In this context other things could be brought into the mix, such as Soviet involvement in third world communist insurgencies, etc. What does everyone think about this? Martintg 06:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article will be big enough whit the current scope+ soviet occupation is common term often sought for.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose "Soviet expansionism" was a concept used by the Americans to justify its policies of Containment, whether it was real or just a political concept is harder to tell without access to Soviet sources, unlike "Soviet occupation" which seems easier to source as fact. Martintg 07:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning to all involved

This edit warring has to stop here. Please be aware that if it continues now that the page has been unprotected, it will be dealt with via blocks rather than further protection. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 09:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fresh start

Moving this discussion here from Talk:Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe as it's really about this article and not that one. --Richard 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be continued at Talk:Soviet occupations but let me respond quickly to your last point. To me, occupation is simply one tool in support of expansionism. Thus, the Soviets only occupied Hungary and Czechoslovakia because those states were at risk of spinning out of their sphere of influence. The Soviets were not as interested in conquering the world Hitler-style as they were in dominating it Warsaw Pact style. I'm not sure exactly where to discuss this or if a relevant article already exists. If it doesn't already exist, we surely need such an article as it is critical in understanding the underpinnings of the Cold War.

--Richard 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard just a note that Soviets were not as interested in conquering the world Hitler-style as they were in dominating it Warsaw Pact style is not entirely correct. The concept of World revolution that lead to the Cold War was the official policy of the USSR since the Comintern until the death of Stalin in 1953. The Soviet "Peaceful coexistence policy" with "Capitalist countries" was promoted by Khrushchev although the Soviet actions resulting for example the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't back up the policy in the reality. And of course ,the policy didn't include the Peaceful coexistence with the "Eastern European" countries like the Hungarian revolution and Prague Spring showed, already mentioned by you as "dominating it Warsaw Pact style"--Termer 08:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's not split hairs. By comparing the Soviets to Hitler, I just meant that the Soviets didn't launch its military on wars of open aggression although NATO assumed that they might decide to do so at some point in the future.
Of course, I think the SU was expansionist. It was the reality of American military and economic might along with the spectre of nuclear holocaust that kept them in check and led to the waging of the Cold War through proxy conflicts, etc. etc. Having China separate off and blaze its own trail didn't help the cause of Soviet hegemony.
World revolution is more insidious than open aggression because it seems less evil and, to some, even righteous.
I think these points need to be made somewhere. I need to spend some time reading the Cold War article and other Soviet Union-related articles to determine whether the points are adequately made or if there is indeed the need for an article titled Soviet expansionism or Soviet hegemony. If you are more familiar with articles related to the Soviet Union and the Cold War, maybe you can share with me your opinion on this matter.
--Richard 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard it's not about splitting hairs. I just meant that the Soviets didn't launch its military on wars of open aggression is unfortunantely factually incorrect since the USSR was one of the parties that started the WWII together with Nazi Germany launching its military against Poland: Invasion of Poland (1939). The USSR launched its military against Finland during Winter War (the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations as the result). And against Baltic states. see soviet military blockade on Baltic states at Estonia in World War II. The Nazi-Soviet Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave the soviets free hands in the east and the Nazis in the west to take over France etc. Not to mention Soviets launched its military against Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia. Not to mention the soviets in Afghanistan. Simply because the USSR never was in an open war with the US doesn't mean that the Soviets didn't launch its military on wars of open aggression. Thanks!--Termer 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant post-WWII but, as you point out, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan suggests otherwise. --Richard 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. regarding Soviet expansionism or Soviet hegemony in my opinion are suggestions motivated to avoid mentioning of "Soviet occupation" on WP. the reason for this is simple. Russians do want to be proud about their victory against Nazis in the WWII, thats fine and totally understandable. At the same time "Soviet occupation" is the most common term used in the "Eastern Europe" regarding "Soviet hegemony" after the countries were "liberated from Nazis" during the WWII. "Soviet occupation" is also the term used by the European Court of Human Rights [9] while referring to the post WWII era (1944-1991) regarding to for example Baltic states. So thats what all this edit war has been all about.--Termer 19:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, let's stop discussing the title and discuss content. I think the problem that I have with Soviet occupations isn't just about the title but the way the title tends to direct the scope. It seems to be about listing and describing the occupations almost as a litany of grievances rather than looking to understand what was driving these occupations. The article doesn't provide any of the geopolitical and cultural background for Soviet expansionism. Now I admit that some of this background was put forth by Western apologists for the Soviet Union. They advanced such "reasons" as historical Russian xenophobia and a desire to create a buffer against invasion of the Russian heartland after the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler. I remember being flabbergasted as a high school student when I learned how many casualties the Soviets had sustained in WWII compared to the United States. We in the United States don't really understand what war is. (That's why 9/11 was traumatizing to us. We'd never seen anything like that before.)
Now, I don't want to suggest that the "reasons" put forth by the apologists are "THE TRUTH". However, I do believe that we should present all POVs about the motivations behind the occupations rather than simply casting the occupations as the depredations of a "evil empire".
--Richard 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that it has anything to do with the subject but, once you brought it up, one of the reasons the soviet war casualties were as high was due to the Soviet soldiers were inbetween 2 fronts. In front they had Nazis and at the back 'Soviet politruk' -Political commissar units that shot everybody that retreated or turned around. Regarding the WP:NPOV issues here. sure, since conflicting perspectives exist within the topic each should be presented fairly.--Termer 19:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Russia's position

Stating in the lead that Russia denies all the so-called occupations requires appropriate sources. Nothing is said about it in the Russia denies Baltic 'occupation' article. Alæxis¿question? 10:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Forking?

Couldn't this article be merged with Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe? They seem quite similar. Biruitorul 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere above you will find a discussion that concludes with the decision to make this a summary article that includes Mongolia, Afghanistan and the Kuril Islands (all of which are outside of Eastern Europe).
Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe is meant to be a detailed article that focuses on Eastern Europe.
The current revision of this article may be too detailed for a summary article. At some point, we need to trim it down.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Important note. I merged (i.e. redirected) the fork Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe back into this article in an attempt to resolve this SNAFU. This came as result of handling the listed Requested Move. This should not be treated as endorsement of either title or article organization.
With due respect and AGF, Richardshusr, I think you erred by splitting the article in the midst of discussion, without consensus, ending up in a WP:POVFORK; and the "parent" article is not written in the summary style still. See WP:BRD. I could agree in principle that the title "Soviet occupations" has POV problems and is subject to dispute, but this was a wrong way to solve it. All involved, please try to seek consensus on the title and whether the article should be split, deleted or whatever. Thank you. Duja► 08:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think POV problems are irrelevant here. This article is very big, and article Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe is big. This article is much wider in scope. A common WP practice is to keep such articles separately, which is more convenient for reader. Yes, there is a certain amount of content forking at the moment. This can be fixed by working with both articles. But overall organization seems to be O'K.Biophys 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Biophys. The point is that there is a content fork. I also think that Duja's unilateral re-direct is at least as much against consensus as the original split. I put forth a proposal to split the article and no one objected. Since Duja objects, we should now have a discussion on the question of whether to split this already very long article into two or keep it as one. --Richard 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Duja's redirect for two reasons. First, the other article duplicated so much content that it was indeed a fork. Second, this article, at 27k, isn't all that long (and shouldn't be - at this point it's really more of a skeleton article giving summaries of bigger articles). However, what I would like to see happening is a discussion of the direction the article should take. Personally, I think we should stop getting stuck on the word "occupation" (if only...) and have much more discussion on why the occupations happened (a why that changed over time), what effect these occupations had on the USSR and on political, social, cultural and economic developments in the USSR and the occupied lands, etc. There's a lot of potential here, if we do it correctly. Biruitorul 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything that Biruitorul wrote above with the exception of the assertion that Duja's redirect was the best approach. One reason that people are getting stuck on "occupation" is that this article is so wide in scope that it mixes together occupations that are not necessarily related and therefore it appears that the underlying agenda is to paint the Soviet Union as an aggressor nation. (I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm just saying the POV agenda is leading to some strange article naming and article scoping.)
I think that all of the topics that Biruitorul suggests would be well dealt with in the pre-Duja-redirect version of Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. The why, the effects and the p,s,c,e developments all hang together quite neatly if we restrict scope to Eastern Europe. Add Mongolia, Afghanistan and the Kuril islands into the mix and you get a mish-mash that is not unified in geography or time and therefore the why, effects and p,s,c,e developments no long hang together as neatly. (Except as manifestations of Soviet expansionism which is a POV that has been rejected.)
--Richard 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, it was an attempt to centralize discussion, not an attempt to propose or impose a definitive solution. I haven't seen any significant difference from the other article and this one (which may be due to revert-warring in the meantime). I might agree that this article in the current state has scope (and perhaps WP:SYN) problems; OTOH, its not so easy to discern the scope—the pre-WWII and post-WWII occupations can be seen as continuity, but Afghanistan is really long shot from here. Creation of Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe might easily be a solution, but not as an almost orphaned content fork. Duja► 06:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Trying not to be too obnoxiously self-assured about this, I really do believe that Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe is part of the solution. As I've stated, that topic hangs together well. I am a little concerned about the word "occupation" in the title but I can live with it for now. The reason the Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe article appears to be a content fork is that I created it only 6 days ago and there has been only a little bit of work done on it since then.
I truly believe that, given a chance, the two articles would evolve away from each other over time. So, to summarize, I think we ought to give my solution a chance. If the two articles are still in the same shape (i.e. near copies of each other) a month from now, then I will throw in the towel and admit that my idea didn't work or didn't gain enough support.
--Richard 07:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that point, Richard - an Eastern Europe only article would allow for a much more concentrated focus as each occupation arose in similar circumstances, had roughly similar causes and effects, and ended more or less simultaneously (Romania and Bulgaria excepted). As long as the overlap is not too big (which it was before), I don't object to two separate articles. Since the situation is still fluid and one rigid article hasn't yet acquired staying power, I welcome further experimentation in this area. Biruitorul 21:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that Duja did not merge article Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe back in this article. He actually deleted it or at least made completely inaccessible, without any AfD discussion.Biophys 02:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem was establishment of Communist regimes rather than Soviet occupation

I think one should focus on political repressions conducted by the Communist governments in Eastern Europe rather than on the Soviet occupation. Main issue is not the occupation, but what the occupants and their puppet governments have done. The death and suffering resulted not from national or ethnic conflicts ("Russians" versus others), but from establishment of a new social system.Biophys 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In the relevant literature, these are generally called occupations. Call them something unsourceable else would constitute WP:OR. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"Occupation" requires that the foreigners do the oppressing. If the local puppets oppress their own people, then that does not automatically equal occupation (even if some sources may try to blur that distinction). --Latebird 09:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Think of it like this. Soviet ideology denied the concept of ethnicity as relevant in such matters, and instead, overstressed the rôle of class. By Soviet interpretation, what happened is that many people of a foreign class -- supposedly, the peasants and industrial workers -- came to dispense oppression onto the local people -- supposedly, kulaks and factory-owners. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Occupation is the term that sources, lots of them use for these events. Thus it warrants use and showing here. It does not matter what we think or know, sources matter.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not dispute the termin "occupation". One can write separately about "occupation" and "repressions" as two different, although related subjects. Repressions were not neccessarily conducted by "Russians", for example in Yugoslavia. I just wanted to tell that too much fighting is going on about "occupation", and not nearly enough was written about actual repressions by the national cadres (yes, under guidance of CPSU and KGB). See the articles about the corresponding socialist countries. Only article Communist Romania probably describes this topic well.Biophys 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

an opinion thrown out here "Occupation" requires that the foreigners do the oppressing is not valid in my opinion. The opportunists who took advantage of the foreign political and military power to advance their personal position can't be a serious argument in this case I think. Otherwise we could also go ahead an say that Norway was never really occupied by Germany because Quisling was the guy who ran the show. Also Yugoslavia is completely out of context I think simply because it was the only independent communist regime that didn't depend on the Soviet presence.--Termer 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Termer. Based on your Quisling analogy, one could tell that Tito was a man who run the Soviet show in Yugoslavia. He was not independent, but directed by Stalin. However, Stalin decided that Tito can not be trusted and ordered to kill him. Stalin failed because Tito purged Soviet NKVD agents who surrounded him. It was a very simple mechainsm of control: if a satellite leader (say in North Korea or China) refused to follow a Stalin's order, he would be killed by NKVD agents from his closest surrounding, and Tito was well aware of that (later on, Andropov tried to poison Amin who did not follow instructions from Moscow). I am not pushing anything here - this is just a discussion.Biophys 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Biophys,good points! Although the fact remains no matter what Stalin attempted, Tito ran his own show not like Quisling.--Termer 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But Quisling didn't run the show. Terboven did. DrKiernan 11:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNT

The more fundamental problem of the article is throwing unrelated issues that took place under widely different circumstances and totally different time frames together to make a WP:POINT. The context, the time and the reasons of the events in Mongolia, Kurils, Agkhanistan and Eastern Europe are so much different that there is no way to put them together except in two narrow case: the article about the Military history of the USSR and the harmless (while useless) List of military operations of the USSR. Only sources devoted to an overall history study these widely different events together. Putting them together in this article is mere WP:SYNT, a product of another WP:POINT by the same disruptive user. --Irpen 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is easy to check. If there are any reliable sources which describe these occupations as related events or as parts of the same phenomenon, this is NOT WP:SYNT. I belive there are such references already in this article. If not, they should be found.Biophys 19:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Any source devoted to the Soviet history overall would mention every such event. The same way, any source about the US history would deal with Annexation of Texas and the Invasion of Iraq. They belong together to the History of the United States article all right as well as many other historic events. But pasting Iraq and Texas together and Bay of Pigs invasion with Invasion of Grenada on top does not add up to an encyclopedic article. --Irpen 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. WP:SYNT says: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C., and so on. I am talking about a source that considers position C (not A and B separately), namely the question of Soviet occupations in general, as a certain phenomenon. If you have a source that descibes "US occupations", you can make an article "US occupations", and this will not be WP:SYNT at all. This applies to anything. If a source tells about rhodopsin, one can make a WP article about rhodopsin. An example of appropriate subject would be also Communist states, because they are described as a certain phenomenon in literature. Biophys 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Then you must oppose the article Overseas expansion of the United States for the same reason? The events described in Soviet occupations are very much related to Soviet expansionism and the US policy of Containment. Being born and raised in the West, I can assure you that the concept of Soviet expansionism was very real here, not some imagined synthesis of unrelated events Martintg 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Irpen, are there sources that say Soviet occupation was limited to one geographic area? I don't know enough to say it's a synth or not, but I sure would like to see more discussion on both sides of what sources say. Canuckle 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviet expansionism is a valid topic and it is markedly different in validity, time and scope than "occupation". Soviet expansionism took place by many means and direct military intervention is only one of them. Propping up the Soviet-oriented regimes in Africa, support of anti-fascist movement in Spain, keeping the anti-US regime in Cuba afloat, these are various examples of Soviet expansionism. They have very little to do, however, with Soviet retaking of Sakhalin and Kurils from Japan conquered by the latter in the 1905 war. I would accept that the scope of the Soviet expansionism as that of the encyclopedic article, but not the arbitrary mix of unrelated "occupations". --Irpen 21:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is also a valid subject for a WP article.Biophys 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
What is a valid subject? And per who is this whatever a valid subject? -Irpen 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I mean that Soviet expansionism is just as valid as "Soviet occupations", but it is a different subject. Maybe one should also make Soviet expansionism article in the future.Biophys 01:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"Soviet occupation" in general is not a valid topic because this is a collocation of two words that apply to things that are totally unrelated to each other except that they are part of the Military history of the USSR. There is nothing in common between retaking Kurils in 1945 and sending troops to Afghanistan in 1979 an no one studies them together unless in the general history articles. --Irpen 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ofcourse they are related, it's the same old RussianSoviet imperialism in operation. If you doubt it, read these 899 books on the topic [10]. It's no more a collocation of two words than Overseas expansion of the United States is a collocation of "Overseas", "expansion" and "United States". Both are valid articles. Martintg 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to show that retaking of Sakhalin and Kurils in 45 and Afghanistan's being "related" is a common academic view. --Irpen 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that Sakhalin and Kurils are not even mentioned in the article, I don't see why I should have to. Martintg 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Gee, that's interesting. The occupation of Mongolia and the Kurils used to be in this article. What happened to them and why are they not in this article any more? --Richard 06:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't you recall removing Mongolia from the article some time ago Richard? [11]. Martintg 09:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
But there are plenty of books that relate the Soviet occupations of Afghanistan and Eastern Europe as part of the same old story [12]. Martintg 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sort of. But I did that when this article was titled Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Under that title, Mongolia, Afghanistan and the Kuril Islands were clearly out of scope. Under the current title, they are in scope. We should restore Mongolia and the Kuril Islands here until we resolve the WP:SYNT problem that Irpen has raised. --Richard 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurils are a part of the Digwuren's template. As for the connection of say, Bukovina, and Afghanistan, I saw none. Could you please provide some evidence that it is generally viewed as related? List of links in google books is not a source. Point specific books and point what exactly connection they make. --Irpen 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your issue is with the template then, not the article. Martintg 04:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Bukovina and Afghanistan are both in the article. --Irpen 04:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Bukovina was originally part of Romania, and this Encyclopedia article deals with both Romanian and Afghan occupations in the article on Soviet imperialism [13]. Martintg 06:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If we want to find a compromise, let's respect each other's views. Was Afganistan occupied by the Soviet forces? Yes, it was. Could one include it in a List of countries occupied by the Soviet Union? Yes, one could. So, let's keep it here. On the other hand, Irpen has a valid point. Why all these occupations are combined together in the same article? Were they described altogether in the literature as a certain phenomenon and why? This should be more clearly explained in the introduction based on sources. I can try to do this later.Biophys 14:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, the [[14]. link you provide] is the article called "Soviet Imperialism". The neutrality of calling the Soviet expansionism this way aside, the expansionism of the USSR is a valid topic and it is OK to include all these events in such comprehensive article was ever written. Similarly, it is OK for these events to be together in the article about the Military history of the USSR. This article is neither. This is merely a collection of events that are pasted together without justification. Were it the List of military operations of the USSR list article, that would have been a different story. This, however, is nothing but the arbitrary collection of disparate events pasted together to make a WP:POINT. As per this and the Biophys above, I am returning {{synthesis}}. Please do not remove justify templates and propose how to improve the article. My proposal is to move the curtailed list to the list article and start a separate geopolitical article entitled with something like Expansionism in the Soviet foreign policy. However, the latter would be premature without the Soviet foreign policy article, which if written with due care is potentially an exciting article. --Irpen 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IrpenThis is merely a collection of events that are pasted together without justification is an opinion and a POV by itself at best. Regarding Soviet Imperialism, if it makes such a difference as a title instead of Soviet Occupation, I'd have no problem with renaming the article accordingly in case a consensus can be built upon it.--Termer 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
PS.Just that Soviet Imperialism would broaden the scope of the article considerably.--Termer 23:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Termer, you mistakenly assume that my goal here is to hide the Soviet crimes or even deny them. I suggest you check out the Holodomor article whose good part was written by myself to rid of this illusion. My goal here is merely the encyclopedic presentation of history. This should be done in the proper way and in the proper order. A bunch of separate events, each article-worthy on their own, pasted together to make a WP:POINT is not an encyclopedic presentation, be it the Aneexation of Texas weirdly combined with Invasion of Iraq, early century Monglia with late-century Afghanistan, 1940 Occupation of Latvia with the 50-yeas history period, etc. All these events are undeniable but they should be presented such that the reader gets keen to learn things from the article that would seem well-written to him, not get appalled by an ax-grinding page. Soviet expansionism as a whole is a valid article topic, unlike the random set of "occupations" pasted together. But even then, a logical course of action is to first write a comprehensive Soviet foreign policy article that would cover all sides of the issue and only then spin-off the "expansionism" if the article gets too long. This article falls on the same old Digwuren's pattern, like creating Denial of Soviet crimes. Same happened when some troll and Ukrainophobe created the Ukrainian Nazi Collaboration during WW2 while the Ukraine in World War Two was (and remains) a red link. --Irpen 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, Irpen, but most of these Soviet occupations are actually described in the literature as a common phenomenon; they are analyzed and compared by historians in numerous publications. I checked the references and made a couple of changes in the introduction to make this more clear. For example, one could make an article about G-protein coupled receptors and describe rhodopsin, melanocortin hormone receptor, etc. as specific examples in this article. Same thing is here. This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:SYNT.Biophys 19:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Soviet subjugation of EE is indeed frequently looked together. But not together with, say, Afghanistan unless the topic of the study is an overall Soviet policy or history. No one just puts the occupations together and says "hey look!" --Irpen 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Irpen, could you hold your horses up there a bit please!:-D I believe I mentioned something about finding a consensus here therefore I have no idea what made you think I assume anything like you suggested up there. Your Texas-Iraq thing is weird though I'm sorry to say. History is written usually after it has happened. Occupation of Iraq by the US and it's allies is a fact thats on TV around the world every day. "Occupation of Texas" happened in 1519-1690 by the Spanish. So I'm sorry, your example didn't make any sense. As the Soviet Union expanded during about 50 years, and then collapsed after the last bite -Afghanistan. And now all the countries, starting with the first ones that were over taken, the Baltic States (or was it Mongolia?) ending with Afghanistan, the countries that were overrun by the SU say they were occupied. That's the status quo like the status quo is that Texas is a state of the US and Iraq is occupied by the US and it's allies.--Termer 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Annexation of Texas article and try putting it together with the Invasion of Grenada and Invasion of Iraq into one US occupations article. Next, try DYKing it and see how it flies through AfD. Good luck with that. --Irpen 06:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would anybody want to do it? I hate to repeat it but once it seems it didn't go through the first time, here it comes once more. It's a fact that Texas is a state of the US. Suggesting that it has any relevance to Soviet occupations would be like saying, any of the countries mentioned in the article are states of the USSR. There is no such a country like USSR any more. And even though there was once an annexation of Baltic states by the USSR. It's all gone. Your example would make sense perhaps in case Texas would become an independent country and than claim that it was occupied by the US. And if that was the case, I wouldn't see any problems with putting it all together including Grenada, Iraq under US occupations. So far, I'm sorry to say it again, adding Annexation of Texas to Grenada-Iraq and comparing it to Soviet takeovers-occupations doesn't make any sense. or another way to put it ,I'm totally missing your point with this Texas thing. Comparing a state of the US to independent countries that were occupied by the USSR and became independent again after the collapse of the USSR, thats quite a stretch or I'm surely missing something how do you see a connection there--Termer 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. Almost forgot! For WP:SYNT worries please see The International Law of Occupation ISBN 0691121303 that speaks of:

  • Occupations by the Soviet Union, 1939-1940; p.67 (Poland, Baltic States, Romania, Finland)
  • Soviet occupation of Hungary, Czechoslovakia p. 161
  • Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; p. 149, 159, 160-163, 166, 183
  • the Soviet occupation of the Baltic republics; p.200
  • Allied occupation during WWII p. 91-97

--Termer 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That book mentions no occupation of Romania. I didn't verify the others, but this lie makes the claims above doubtful.Anonimu 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
"a lie"? That's a heavy accusation. On page 68, the source says "Two other republics that were similarly incorporated into the USSR during 1940 were Moldavia (formerly part of Romania)..." Canuckle 22:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no occupation of Romania mentioned. Moldavia (actually Bessarabia) had a very complex situation: interwar Romanian rule not recognized by the US and the Soviets, and the treaty who was supposed to acknowledge Romania's rule never entered into force. To claim that the neutral formulation "formerly part of Romania" equates occupation is a lie.Anonimu 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Once again, WP:SYN is about making logical conclusions by WP contributors (A+B=>C), which is equal to WP:OR. Here we are talking about choice of an article topic. Can one make an article about G-protein coupled receptors, or US occupations, or Soviet occupations, etc? Yes, absolutely. And what would be a subject of such article? Obviously, G-protein coupled receptors, US occupations, and so on! Of course, one would have to make sure that each particular example is indeed a G-protein coupled receptor, a US occupation, etc - based on sources. This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:SYN.Biophys 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine. I just removed the occupation of Romania from the article for now to make it not a "WP:SYN" according to some editors. Romania-Bessarabia, 1940 is mentioned in the book as a Soviet occupation, that one stays. --Termer 06:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the removal of Romania that WAS occupied by Soviet military forces from article "Soviet occupations" is a typical example of removing sourced material to satisfy someone's personal POV. As such, this is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Hence my revert.Biophys 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussing different remote events of US military operations within the concept of American imperialism may be fine, but this is not the same as pasting Iraq War and Annexation of Texas in the would be US occupations article with the arbitrary scope. The concept of the Soviet imperialism would be an equally valid article's topic (even though it would be more encyclopedic to first develop a Soviet foreign policy article and spin ogg the imperialism if this gets too detailed. But a list of occupations themselves just pasted together outside of the imperialism or expansionism scope is nothing but WP:POINT. --Irpen 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Or we could start with Soviet Empire as the umbrella article and work down to foreign policy and military or civilian occupation. And I'm not enamored of the list format. If that's the point-y part of this article then let's discuss. Canuckle 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Can one provide examples of Soviet occupation in the article about Soviet occupations? Yes, one can.Biophys 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One can write an article with an encyclopedic scope that would entail the Soviet military occupations and supply it with examples. Yes. The separate events pasted together without such scope is not an encyclopedic article. --Irpen 21:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Soviet troops were, it appears, in Bulgaria from 1944 to 1947. Are we looking at a "Soviet occupation of Bulgaria" article? Biruitorul 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely.Biophys 22:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
One also should not forget about Soviet occupation of North Korea.Biophys 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice demonstration of wounded nationalistic pride

This article almost gives new meaning to the description WP:POV. It misses at least 3 real occupations carried out by Soviet forces (this is off the bat, I can probably name couple of others) and emphasize such grievances as destruction of civilian houses in the course of war (what a heartless action, no other country ever harmed civilian house during the war). I suggest that all editors who doesn't share Baltic/Polish POV should step aside for a week or two to give our Estonian friends and Piotrus enough time to talk their hearts off. Otherwise you just make junk science look credible. In it's current form article is self-incriminating. It is so incomplete and unbalanced, no sane person can take it seriously. RJ CG 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on ones definition of sanity. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or did anyone by any chance use ethnic epithets above? I might be mistaken but didn't WP:NPA mention something about that such things could be considered a personal attack? Although once brought up, I can't see any reasons for the Baltic/Polish or our Estonian friends to be concerned about such an attack or have wounded nationalistic pride simply because the nations came out of the cold war era as winners and reestablished their sovereignties and independent statehoods unlike some other countries where knowingly the collapse of the Soviet Union has been considered as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century. So the section seems to be about a Nice demonstration of wounded nationalistic pride indeed, just that...I apologize for responding to this post and suggest, the section should be removed all together as not relevant to improving the article and WP in general. Thanks!--Termer 23:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What we are seeing here is the glorification of the Soviets and an attempt to re-write the outcome of the Cold War. Martintg 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
But the suggestion of RJ CG that Irpen and some others should "step aside" is reasonable. Termer and Marting could work for a few days to improve this article, in agreement with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Why not?Biophys 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be pretty much useless. But I can predict that we will end up with 20 articles about Soviet occupation in every single country, 20 articles about Communist repressions in each country, a List of Soviet-occupied countries, and yet other articles which describe Soviet expansionism everywhere (including Africa) and Soviet occupations everywhere (this article). Biophys 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected page due to edit warring

Alright guys, there's been too much reverting and not enough discussion. Please hash out here whether or not the occupation of Romania should be included in the article. When you have reached a consensus, leave me a note on my Talk Page or on WP:RPP.

--Richard 07:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Include. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that several reliable scholarly sources consider Soviet occupation of Romania one of the Soviet occupations. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 07:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
First I'd like to point the opinions of two users who otherwise support the existence of the article (note i don't know them and i don't remeber ever collaborating with them on wikipedia):
  1. Sander Säde 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC): With the exception of Romania, these all show that scientific community considers these to be an occupation. Unfortunately, it is near-impossible to do a negative search, ie find a source that claims these weren't occupations - ie, "soviet union" romania "not occupation" does not return any relevant matches. Sander Säde 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Termer 06:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC): I just removed the occupation of Romania from the article for now to make it not a "WP:SYN" according to some editors. Romania-Bessarabia, 1940 is mentioned in the book as a Soviet occupation, that one stays.
The applicability of occupation to the presence of the Soviet troops in Romania is currently disputed on the talk page of the article. We even have western sources (accepted as RS even by users supporting the occupation POV) that deny the occupation. I think it should removed or rephrased to say that the occupationist view has limited support, even outside the ex-soviet space. And mr Digwuren should vote in his local elections, not on wiki. Anonimu 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There still are sources in peer-reviewed scientific journals that consider Soviet presence to be an occupation, even that same simple search shows it. What I meant was that there is no easily demonstratable overwhelming consensus about occupation of Romania, like it is with other countries in question. However, I cannot claim to be overly familiar with the history of Romania, but when reliable sources (which scientific peer-reviewed journals most definitely are) call it occupation, then I think it would be at least mentioned. I have not seen those particular "deny the occupation" reliable sources that you speak of, could you please give links to them? -- Sander Säde 10:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I hate this google searches. The second result uses soviet occupation under quotes, to show that was the POV of the exiles. The third result has no connection with the subject. Read the articles.Please guys, stop using google (web, book, scholar) search results indiscriminately. It really hurts the encyclopedia. See the talk of the page about the situation in romania (linked above) Anonimu 12:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand this. Anonimu, do you want to tell that Soviet military forces were never present at the Romanian territory during WW II? And if they were present, they obviously occupied this territory. I personally believe that occupation is not neccessarily such a bad thing. For example, it was right to occupy Nazi Germany by the ally forces. An important question is what the occupants did at the occupied territories.Biophys 15:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So you say that Germany and Italy are currently occupied by the US? cause they surely have american troops on their terriotry?Anonimu 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory belonging to a state passes to a hostile army." That is what we are taking about. One can talk about occupation of Iraq, or occupation of Europe during WWII. German territory is now controlled by democratically elected German governement. Biophys 17:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Romania was put under an Allied Control Commission headed by Soviets, but its government and king continued to rule, although their decision power was limited by the above decission. There was nothing like Iraq or Germany after WW2. Most Soviet troops, joined by a part of the Romanian army, moved rapidly through Romania to liberate Northern Transilvania or Belgrade.Anonimu 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is clearly a lot of room to discuss what is a "democratically elected government" and what is a "puppet government". For example, was South Vietnam "occupied" by the United States or were the U.S. troops there at the behest of the South Vietnamese government? How about South Korea and the Phillipines? How about Iraq?
Getting back to the point at hand, where does Romania fit into this spectrum from South Korea to South Vietnam to the Phillipines to Iraq to Hungary/1956 and Czechoslovakia/1968?
The Parliament elected in 1946 (even if we would accept they were rigged, the wiki article shows that the soviet army had only supported the communist indirectly by just sitting around) was favourable to the Soviets due to ideologic reasons. However the king continued to rule over the new govt formed, and he was literally the last king of eastern europe. The Soviet presence in Rumania was legalized by the 1944 armistice signed by the king, the 1947 paris treaty, also approved by the king, and later by conventions between republican Romania and Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. In the early 50s Romania can be considered a puppet state, but the fact is that the soviet presence was regulated before the period.Anonimu 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If the word "occupation" is not sufficient to capture all the variants of Soviet military intervention and presence in various countries, then this is a great time to draw the distinctions for the reader. Don't get overly wrapped up in trying to define "military occupation" perfectly. Put forth a definition and then explain why some cases might be debatably "occupation".
--Richard 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem's that's very hard to write abut the distinctions without violating WP:OR and WP:SYN.Anonimu 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. Can we start by saying that Japan and Germany were occupied for short times by the Allied Powers and that Iraq was also occupied for a short time by Coalition Powers. However, all of them are now under independent governments although Iraq's independence is debatable. South Vietnam and South Korea were never occupied by U.S. forces (i.e. there was always an independent government) although one could argue that South Vietnam was a "client state" of the United Sates and both were clearly dependent on U.S. military protection against invasion by the North.
So now, where does Romania fit into this picture? Was there ever a time when the Soviet military had jurisdiction over Romanian territory? Or are we saying that Romania was a "client state" of the Soviet Union the way the other Warsaw Pact nations were?
The head of the allied control comission was a soviet marshal, but he was acting in the name of all the allies. And Soviet military administered Northern Transylvania for some time, but that was a complex situation. When Romania signed the armistice it was still part of Hungary. The armistice declared void the Vienna award but was ambiguos about the status of Northern Transilvania. Soviet administration there ended anyway long before the Paris Treaty returned that teritory to Romania. So I wouldn't say Soviets had direct control of Romania. I don't know if "client state" is the best term, but yes, the sovereign romanian gvt was a close ally to the Soviets, who had an important word to say in romania's foreign policy of the early 50s. It's important to note however that soviet troops stationed in Romania after 1947 didn't intervene in the internal affairs of Romania (i.e. they weren't used against disidents and class enemies or to crush revolts)Anonimu 23:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe my understanding of terminology is old-fashioned but I never thought of Eastern Europe as being "occupied" by the Soviet Union. Dominated, intimidated and cowed, yes. But "occupied"? No, I would never have used that word. So, has the meaning of "occupation" changed in the last 20 years?
--Richard 23:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I know, Soviet occupation is generally used in the postwar era only for Hungary '56 and Czechoslovakia '68 (and obviously the soviet occupation zone in Germany). Oh, and in the last years the occupation of Baltics seems to gain importance due to EU documents... but we really don't care about balts in this part of europe.Anonimu 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To Richard, thats no surprise. old-fashioned? in the sense that the West "sold out" the "Eastern Europe" to Stalin after the WWII by recognizing the soviet expansionism de facto. Therefore the thing was put away and forgotten by the west, only used as a card in play during the cold war. Therefore people still learn about it after the Soviet occupations ended and the people and the governments from "Eastern Europe" were able to speak freely and reminded the West what had happened to them meanwhile. So, in case you've fallen a bit behind with this, not to worry.--Termer 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Important statement

I just know Anonimu is going to accuse me of a WP:NPA violation (based on the "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" clause), but, per WP:IAR, I am going to tell readers unfamiliar with this situation that I am an anti-Communist and Anonimu is a Communist. However, I'll let you draw your own conclusions and not use that fact to "dismiss or discredit" his views.

Nevertheless, I must write this in order to provide some background and counteract the distortions he presented above. Since March 26, a dispute has been ongoing at Soviet occupation of Romania; a group of editors (Anonimu included) wishes to move the page and others (myself included) wishes to retain it at its present location. No one disputes that hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were stationed on Romanian soil from late August 1944 to mid-1958. What is in dispute is whether this constituted an "occupation" or not.

Above, Anonimu writes that "western sources...deny the occupation". Actually, one Western source (International History of the Twentieth Century - a broad-based work where a mistake could easily have slipped in) mentions in passing that "the Soviets had not occupied Romania" but doesn't explain what this means. On the other side of the ledger, we have numerous (see footnote 4) sources that speak of an "occupation" - including an entire book on the subject, Sergiu Verona's Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958 from Duke University Press.

Oh typical US Congress argument: not our view, but since we've written it, we certainly made a mistake becuase we had better thing to do. The books doesn,t mention it "in passing", it actually uses as an argument for some decision made by the Romanian gvt. Those "numerous" sources are a collection of cherry picked anti communist (one of them suspected to be a US spy). Biriuitorul's claim on Verona's book is strange, because I couldn't see any quote of "Soviet occupation 1944-1958". The title can't be used to support the title, because it ignores the "diplomacy" part fo the title. Anonimu 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah, it is mentioned in passing - and it doesn't make sense either, since it then says that the Soviets "apparently threatened direct intervention on several occasions", which would be odd, since they were already there. Even Homer nodded, after all. The fact that one was an American spy actually makes him eminently qualified to comment on the matter, and your silly accusation that the other quotes are "cherry-picked" was shot to pieces long ago. If they mention a "Soviet occupation", they do, OK? And dismissing something as "anti-Communist" isn't going to bolster your case either - I imagine most readers think "good!" when they hear "anti-Communist", just like "anti-Nazi". Both of those ghastly 20th century totalitarianisms are dead.
When you'll write a book about it, call me. Otherwise, what you think about a respectable book is not relevant. Yeah, the spies are the most neutral authors. We should write this in WP:NPOV. Quotes are cherry-picked, and you couldn't prove otherwise. They do, but that not a reason to have a POV title.Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
As for Verona, can I invoke WP:CHEESE? Obviously, a book entitled Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958 is going to be discussing the 14-year Soviet occupation of Romania. However, the book is available for further browsing, should readers be interested. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Its "occupation and diplomacy". That's pretty right: the soviet presence was occupation in '44-'47, and the result of diplomacy in '47-'58. Of course, both your interpretation and mine are OR. And BTW, you get ;ess than half of the book on google. Isn't this a misuse of it?Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I welcome Sander Säde's Google Scholar search, which turned up yet another journal article (from the prestigious Journal of Contemporary History no less) mentioning the "brutal Soviet occupation of Romania" - a source conveniently ignored by Anonimu.

That source is already used in the article. But the fact that's the only valid source discovered by Google Scholar makes it pretty clear that "Soviet occupation of Romania" is not a well established concept. Considering this, and the fact that occupation is POV, the title of that article and the inclusion of a section about it in thsi article aren't respecting wiki policies.Anonimu 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No, all it does is show that it's a pretty under-researched concept - do prove me wrong by finding other sources on Google Scholar calling in something else. Just saying "occupation is POV" doesn't magically make it so. The case for the term "occupation" is quite solid (I can repeat it again if someone is interested, but it hinges on WP:RS), so in fact the section should be included. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's an under-researched concept, then it falls under WP:UNDUE. Yes, but the international treaties make it so. Yeah, that cherry-picked collection of yours.Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu also asks whether Italy and Germany are US-occupied territories. Perhaps he is not aware of SOFAs - notably absent in Romania's case. It is true that an Allied Control Commission came into being in September 1944. However, the country was de facto under sole Soviet control:

Probably Biruitorul is not aware of a thing called Peace treaty with Rumania, Paris, 1947. While this is enough under International law, Romania and SU signed a bilateral treaty in 1948 that accepted the presence of soviet troops in Romania.
I'm sorry, but you'll need some sort of proof the latter agreement existed. And the first merely brought the 1944-47 occupation to a close; it did not address the 1947-58 part. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
See the february 4th treaty of friendship, collaboration and assistence between PRR and USSR. Nop it adressed the 1948-1955 part, while the warsaw treaty adressed the 1955-1958 (confirmed also by a bilateral treaty in 1957).Anonimu 12:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And to debunk Biru's claims:

  • the only thing US and UK did in Romania was bombing some strategic location. This didn't need a military presence on Romanian territory. However Soviet troops fighted the axis on the territory of Romania several times (Jassy-Kishinev operation, fights along the Prahova Valley, eliberation of Northern Transylvania +other minor skirmishes) and had to pass through Romania to liberate Bulgaria, Belgrade and Hungary.
First off, those places were not "liberated", merely subject to a new enslavement. But Anonimu here drastically overstates the Soviet role in driving the Germans out of Romania. Bucharest, the capital, was firmly in Romanian hands by August 24, a week before the Soviets entered, and by then the remaining German presence was feeble and fading. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Denying the liberation from fascists doens't improve you image. Hey, but you denied holocaust before, so it's nothing new. Soviet must have fought with themselves on the Prahova Valley then.Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some skirmishes did happen, but "liberation from fascists" comes straight out of Stalinist propaganda. Allow me to translate a bit from the 1952 Constitution of Romania - "The Romanian People's Republic was born as a result of the historic victory of the Soviet Union over German fascism and the liberation of Romania by the glorious Soviet Army, a liberation that empowered the working people, headed by the working class led by the Communist Party, to destroy the fascist dictatorship, to vanquish the power of the expoliting classes and to build a state of popular democracy, which is in full harmony with the interests and aspirations of Romania's popular masses." That is the "tradition" you are drawing on, but guess what - you're 50 years too late for that. The facts (as opposed to the propaganda) show that Romanians by and large liberated themselves (with peripheral Soviet and, I might add, rather important American help). So, yes, I do deny the "liberation from fascists" as presented by Communist propaganda, and I'm sure my image hasn't been tarnished by that. Biruitorul 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
For the benefit of those users who are new to these discussions, just let me emphatically point out that Biruitorul never denied the Holocaust in any way, shape or form. Anonimu has frequently leveled this particular accusation against Biru in the heat of dispute, but let the record show that it is baseless. K. Lásztocska 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The International Comission for the Study of Holocaust in Romania considers Biruitorul's position on the matter "negationism". Anonimu 12:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Again for the benefit of our confused readers: Biruitorul is of the opinion that a specific WW2 event involving an anti-Jewish massacre in Romania was not specifically part of the Holocaust. He never denied, negated or even questioned the existence (or the tragedy) of the Holocaust, he merely questioned whether one particular event was part of it. K. Lásztocska 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly: negationism.Anonimu 12:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And who exactly appointed Yad Vashem and the Commission judges of what is and what is not "negationism", a charge that (not unlike the charge of being a "Legionnaire" in Communist Romania, a "rootless cosmopolite" in the early 1950s Soviet Empire, a "witch" in mediaeval Europe or a "Communist" in McCarthy-era America) opens one to instant ostracism or worse? How dare they devise it so that deviating by one iota from their history by fiat instantly renders one a pariah? Shame on them for closing off avenues of perfectly valid debate by raising the spectre of "negationism" at every sign of independence from the party line. Guess what - I don't give a fig what these self-declared arbiters of righteousness think - I for one form my own opinions, free from prejudice but also free from diktat. I'm not prone to using all caps, but TO HELL WITH THEM!!! And as for you, Anonimu, your repetition of that slander has been duly noted.
Thank you, K. Lastochka, for clarifying my position. What you have described is indeed where I stand, and I hope the community does not let slide yet another vile and wholly baseless accusation of Holocaust denial. Biruitorul 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • there was no official US or British document to oppose the expulsion of Germans, the comments of the few low level officials being just personal oppinions.
Oh, come off it. Both countries were opposed enough, even if they didn't say so loud and clear. What else are you suggesting? Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
They didn't care about germans, they were happy enough that they could defeat them. The fact is that there was no official position to condemn the displacement.Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • the percentage agreement was an informal one, as opposed to the international agreements as the Armistice of 1944 and the Peace Treaty of 1947 that gave legality to the presence of Soviet troops.
Right, but a) those treaties established not merely a "presence", but an occupation, and b) it may have been informal, but it also shaped the post-WWII map of Europe, so you can't just dismiss it. Just as 70% of human communication is non-verbal, probably > 99% of international dealings do not take the form of international agreements of the type you mention. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
a)Read the treaty again.b)since the public treaty made the presence legal, the informal negotiations really don't count.Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • there was no Cold war when the Armistice was signed in 1944.Anonimu 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, true, but it developed fairly soon afterward, meaning the British and American role in Romania was decisively limited by that fact. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He also fails to mention that on March 6, 1945, a Communist-dominated puppet government was installed after the Soviets directly threatened the King, and that Soviet deputy Commissar for Foreign Affairs Andrey Vyshinsky played the role of viceroy - decisions were made by him and transmitted to the government, which dutifully carried out Moscow's bidding (it had no choice, given the facts - the occupying Soviet troops - on the ground).

Actually historians think that the question of Northern Transylvania had the decisive role in the installment of a coalition government headed by a philo-communist. Romania never had such thing as a viceroy, and Vyshinsky role is far overemphasized by Biruitorul.Anonimu 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you please cite some of these "historians"? I'd also like to point out that the "coalition" was only that on paper. The Communists were using salami tactics to squeeze out the democratic parties - just as they did in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, where the democratic façade was maintained for a time while actual democracy was systematically eroded. In actuality, starting on March 6, 1945, the prime minister was a fellow-traveller of the Communists, who held the absolutely crucial posts of interior, defence and justice. Make no mistake: this was no genuine "coalition", but a placeholder until the real terror could begin.
I could. Yes, a coalition, with no scarequotes. You forgot (did you?) to mentions that the foreign minister was a liberal, and another minister was a PNŢist.Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the Soviets never named a "viceroy" - I didn't say he had that title, only that he played that role. And he did. He and the Soviet ambassador called the shots, not the "sovereign" Romanian government. I'm sorry, but his role really was that big, as attested to by numerous Romanian sources that I can produce if demanded. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Romanian sources... most likely post-coup onesAnonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He then moves on to brush over the major role the Soviets played in rigging the 1946 elections, which democratic parties overwhelmingly won but were falsified under the watchful eyes of the Soviets. Furthermore, he fails to note just how constrained the King's position was - not only was he forced to abdicate by a Communist prime minister who was pointing a gun at him and threatening to shoot rallying pro-monarchist students outside his window - but the notion that the King "continued to rule" is laughable. The Soviets and their Romanian stooges held the real levers of power (like the Interior, Defence and Foreign ministries) and the King was not exactly in a position to refuse to sign the armistice or the Peace Treaty. Moreover, he was the last king of Eastern Europe (other than Constantine of Greece) because the Albanian king had been forced to flee in 1939, the Yugoslav one in 1941 and the Bulgarian one was deposed in a Soviet-rigged referendum before the Romanian one. It's not because the Soviets weren't occupying Romania. In any case, what we really have here is what scholars recognise it to be - the forced imposition of a puppet regime by an occupying force, not a force that stayed with the consent of the governed country and people, by any reasonable definition.

Nobody could bring a source that "historical parties" won those elections, thus far from the "overwhelmingly" Biru claims (a clear proof of his POV and emotional commitment in the matter). Soviets did not have a major role in the allegedly rigged elections. Read the article on wiki, and you'll se for yourselves. The version of the abdication is the one supported only by king's declarations after he left the country. Of course he couldn't say that he abdicated because commies offered him a huge bounty, this fact being the only one supported by documents. And of course he couldn't refuse to sign the armistice. He was the nominal king of an axis country who perpetraded Holocaust. There's no reason to answer to the last Biruitorul's claims, cause the only motivation for them is anti-Communism.Anonimu 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't deride my arguments as mere "emotional commitment", and see WP:CHEESE - I'm not able to produce a source proving that the historical parties won the 1946 elections, but the evidence, as compiled by numerous reliable historians, is convincing. (Your argument is like saying Hitler never signed an order for the Holocaust, so he's innocent of it.) Please, the rigging was blatant and the presence of Soviet tanks in the streets a major contributing factor to the intimidation. Between Communist fabrications and the word of an honourable man, I'll trust my King. Plus, by the time of the Armistice, Antonescu had been arrested for three weeks, so that Romanian government was blameless. Even if Antonescu's regime "perpetraded Holocaust" (I thought Hitler was responsible for that?), the whole "Holocaust in Romania" business didn't emerge in earnest until mid-1991, so that wasn't really on people's minds back then. What we really have here is what scholars recognise it to be - the forced imposition of a puppet regime by an occupying force, not a force that stayed with the consent of the governed country and people, by any reasonable definition. You have done nothing to counter the scholarship on the subject except try to scare people by labelling me an "anti-Communist" - as if that's a bad thing. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Then show that evidence. When you bring encouraging old women to vote for them by giving them products as an argument, of course the claim is risible. That "honourable man" that was your king shouldn't have plundered the romanian state when he left. That "honourable man" accepted to be king over a country who's gvt perpetrated crimes against its citizens. It wasn't called "Holocaust", but Antonescu & co were condemned because they mass killed jews. Nop, it was just the installment, with the encouragement of the Soviets, of a govt supported by a simple majority of Romanian citizens.Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu then indulges his longtime habit of shouting OR! SYN! POV! in lieu of actual arguments. In fact speaking of a Soviet occupation of Romania in the Soviet occupations article is essential; not doing so would be to deny a crucial such occupation and to yield to fringe agendas.

When articles break such important wikipedia policies i have to act, and i have given numerous argument for each and every action. Of course, i didn't genrally use personal attacks, a preffered "actual argument" of other guys. Not speaking of the presence of Soviet troops in Romania as "occupation" is the only right thing to do, as proved by Britannica, Columbia and other prestigious encyclopedias.Anonimu 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
All I can say is that you've been incredibly disruptive to the process and that works devoted specifically to the occupation are much more trustworthy than general-knowledge encyclopedias. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
And you've been incredibly POV-pushing. General encyclopedias show the concept that have gained wide consensus. Wikipedia si a general encyclopedia, and should do the same.Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Anonimu claims that the Allied Control Commission was acting "in the name of" all the Allies. True, but that obscures the totality of Soviet control I outlined above. I too would agree that the Soviets were not in "direct" control of Romania, but as has been outlined on the Soviet occupation of Romania talk page (I can dredge up the specifics if anyone wishes), the Soviet presence up to 1947 because of the deportations, and after 1947 because no document provided for it, was illegal and constituted an occupation. Anonimu too avers that the Soviets "didn't intervene in the internal affairs of Romania", but that is false on two counts: first, they created enough fear among the general populace that a mass uprising wasn't attempted, second, the Soviets were behind the SovRoms, economic enterprises that sucked dry the Romanian economy for a decade and a half, and third, Stalin ordered the Danube-Black Sea canal, a notorious project and branch of the Gulag that imprisoned up to one million - one million - Romanian men and killed off perhaps a fifth of them.

False, important uprisings existed, as did guerilla troops against the state order, but Soviet army didn't intervene in either case. SovRoms were joint ventures, and while the Romanian gvt offered preferential prices tot he Soviets, the Soviets also reduced the value of war reparations Romania had to pay as a former Axis country. Stalin had an influence in the start of the construction of the canal, but the truth is that even the anti-communist Radio Free Europe didn't claim more than 100,000 prisoners (see the article). So i can safely accuse Biruitorul of outrageous lie, and this should give you an idea of the "neutrality" and "credibility" of this user.Anonimu 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they weren't "against the state order" but against state tyranny, and no, there was no general popular uprising. Romania's economy suffered enormously due to the reparations it had to pay (which are usually a bad idea - see the Treaty of Versailles), and the "joint venture" aspect of the SovRoms is obviously a joke - the Romanians were in no position to refuse. Excuse me, but please do not impugn my credibility and neutrality - I have many people who can attest to those qualities. Those figures were derived from the article itself, and I did say "up to" one million, and "perhaps" a fifth killed - these numbers may or may not be too high, but they are plausible given the evidence, and even if in reality they are lower, I urge Anonimu to withdraw this outrageous assault on my honour. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
They fought in the same way Communists fought against Romanian tiranny over foreign territories, just that the guerillas used terrorist tactics, while communists used propaganda. But there were important local uprisings, and soviet troops didn't move a finger, even if the uprising were close to their bases. The reparations were just 1/5 of the damage done by Romanians troops fighting up to Stalingrad, and as i said, were eventually reduced to 1/3 of their peace treaty value by december 1947. Sovroms also helped the reconstruction of post-war romania... even if they used the german material confiscated at the peace treaty.. Sorry but to call the maximum 100,000 advanced by a known propaganda source "up to one million" is a blatant lie. They are far from being plausible, and I keep my position.Anonimu 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Make no mistake, whatever Anonimu may tell you, the Soviet occupation was real, and it was brutal. Just see the multiple reliable sources we've brought out to back up this contention. Biruitorul 07:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh another of your "actual arguments" in violation of WP:NPA.Anonimu 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Where exactly is the violation? Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say whatever the Government of Romania says that goes. If they think they were occupied by the USSR than that was the case. Anybody else saying anything different is irrelevant because it's up to Romanians and their elected government to decide what happened to their country. Is it a POV? Surely is like with any rape case there is a POV of a victim and POV of a rapist who often claim that the victim asked for it, therefore there was no rape. There is nothing new in here.--Termer 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I know, Romania's gvt says nothing about it.Anonimu 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So, would you say that whatever the governments of Myanmar, Chechnya and Iraq say "goes"? I'm sorry but Termer's argument is patently silly. We should document all respectable opinions in the political and academic spheres, regardless of whether or not it is the "official" story espoused by the government of Romania.
--Richard 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richard for charing your opinions. Myanmar is run by their own military, Chechnya is not a country, and Iraq...well. Unlike Romania that is a democratic country, a member of the European Union, they should have a say in this since it's their county after all.--Termer 21:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They should be treated with caution no mather, per WP:SELFPUB.Anonimu 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What caution? In case there are conflicting perspectives, each should be presented fairly and the only thing needed: Romania was occupied according to...Romania was a happy independent communist country according to... and there is nothing more to it.--Termer 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is precisely my point. Romania was a happy independent socialist republic according to... "the Communist governments of Romania and the Soviet Union". Romania was a miserable subservient oppressed and occupied Communist vassal to the Soviet Union according to "the post-Communist government of Romania". I'm sure historians also have something to say on this topic. The point is the truth is not the sole property of the current Romanian government as Termer's previous comment seemed to imply. --Richard 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that the post-Communist gvt of Romania would dare to call the romania of the 70s a "a miserable subservient oppressed and occupied Communist vassal ".Anonimu

No personal attacks

Hello Anonimu, I'd be more careful with throwing WP:NPA around. As far as I can see Biophys has commented on your opinions and editing pattern not on you as a person. Please note that Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Thanks!--Termer 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If i'd say: "User:Termer is wrong whatever he says, because my opinion is the only real one", would you consider it a personal attack?Anonimu 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Anonimu: so you consider "you're wrong" as a personal attack? K. Lásztocska 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Anonimu, thanks for asking for my opinion. It's irrelevant what I say, the only thing that matters on WP is a reliable source out there that says whatever. Therefore a claim like "my opinion is the only real one" would be a source I think that could not be taken seriously. I'd hope to count not on my personal opinions but try to edit WP according to the sources out there, therefore anybody who claims User:Termer is wrong whatever he says, I would need to forward such claims to the sources I've been referring to. Because I don't count on my personal opinions but on the sources out there instead, it would be very difficult for me to look at the example you've given as a personal attack against me. Thanks!--Termer 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but since you're wrong whatever you say, I must ignore you. ;)Anonimu 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You got it right exactly :-D, it would be the best if personal opinions would be ignored on WP all together. what shouldn't be ignored though are the sources anybody is referring to. So if we could get this right there shouldn't be any further disputes here--Termer 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If all opinions would be ignored we'd have a lot of "bitch", "fag", "motherfucker" and certainly lots of "your mamma's". Source don't guarantee quality. Confirmation bias is a widespread phenomenom on wikipedia (just look how many links to google book and scholar searches are posted on talkpages. People use snipets to support one position, even if the part of the book not accesible online actually criticize that position. The bad part is that the only thing preventing such a misuse of an otherwise valuable instrument is morality, a rara avis in wikipedia).Anonimu 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's rich to see someone who just defended (scroll to the bottom) the cold-blooded slaughter of 200 unarmed civilians bemoan the lack of "morality" on Wikipedia. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Get a grip.Anonimu —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation, puppet regime, client state, Soviet satellite

I think we are debating what term to use to describe the relationship between Romania and the Soviet Union between 1946 and 1958. The title of this section suggests several possibilities...Soviet occupation, puppet regime, client state, Soviet satellite.

Being a staunch anti-Communist myself, I have no desire to sugar-coat any brutality or atrocities committed under the Communist-era. However, I think it abuses the English language to use the word "occupation" to describe post-WWII relationships between the Soviet Union and Eastern European/Baltic countries.

To me, occupation means one thing. There is no official pretense of an independent government. All decisions and laws are made by the occupying country. Usually, this occupation is backed by military force. However, the key idea here is that the occupying country freely admits that it is occupying the territory and will not permit any semblance of an independent government, let alone an independent military.

If you look at Germany, Japan and Iraq, you will see that there is a clear period where there was an occupation. If you look at South Vietnam, South Korea, Iraq and the Phillipines, you can see that there is a period where a putatively independent government is kept in power through the presence and use of foreign military forces. However, this second category is not termed occupation.

Choosing to use a word other than occupation to describe Romania in the years 1946-1958 does not mean we have to whitewash what was done by the Communist Romanian government under duress or in collaboration with the Stalinist regime of the Soviet Union. However, we must not allow nationalism or other political positions to pervert the English language by using a word in ways which diverge from common usage.

--Richard 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Richard, -There is no official pretense of an independent government? Are you saying that in case there is pretense of an independent government, it's no occupation? That would count out for example the Occupation of Denmark by Germany during the WWII. Because the Danish government remained in power and was pretty independent even though the country was occupied by Germany. All decisions and laws are made by the occupying country. In Denmark most of the Danish laws remained in force during the whole period of occupation. For example Jews were never outlawed etc. Usually, this occupation is backed by military force., yes, for example Denmark was occupied by the military force of Germany during the WWII. will not permit any semblance of an independent government, let alone an independent military. The Danish army was allowed to maintain 2,200 men + 1,100 auxiliary troops. Much of the fleet remained in port, but in Danish hands.

So, I'm sorry Richard what exactly are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the Occupation of Denmark never happened and it should be renamed on WP in order to avoid perverting the English language according to you?

Now, back to the "Eastern European/Baltic countries". In case this is your opinion indeed that the word "occupation" abuses the English language, the easiest for me would be to suggest, please take it up with the relevant countries that say they were occupied by the USSR. Also since it's about abusing the English language, it would be better to start from the US State Department and the British Foreign Office that say the countries were occupied by the USSR.

  • Soviet occupation of Romania at the us state deprmnt. The post-war Soviet occupation led to the formation of a Communist "people's republic" in 1947 and the abdication of the king [[15]]
  • Czech Republic- Through the long darkness of Soviet occupation [[16]].
  • President Mobutu -why did not anyone speak out against the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. [[17]]
  • Fifty years of Soviet occupation diminished the role of religion in society [[18]]
  • Before the Soviet occupation in 1940, relations between the UK and Estonia were close. As a result of the Soviet occupation (deportation of many of the indigenous population and inward migration by Russians), the ethnic Estonian component of the population has fallen significantly.[[19]]
  • under the Soviet occupation thousands of Latvians were deported to Siberian camps.[[20]]

ETC. That should do it for now. Thanks!--Termer 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Like one would consider the position of the CIA neutral.Anonimu 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, why not? Nothing the matter with that. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Anonimu, this time it wasn't about neutrality but about an opinion: the use of the word "occupation" is an abuse of the English language. The only thing I did, pointed out some sources that are abusing the English language in such ways.--Termer 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think one can reasonably argue that all Warsaw Pact countries were occupied by the Soviet Union as long as Brezhnev doctrine remained in force. This Andropov's "doctrine" meant that governments of the corresponding countries are controlled from Moscow. Hence the "occupation" is an appropriate term according to the definition above. However this position should be better supported by sources.Biophys 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a fallacy. Supposing you were right, how could you explain Romania's position on prague '68?Anonimu 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In this instance, Biophys, I say let's carve out a partial exception for Romania and probably Bulgaria (which remained a loyal Soviet satellite but which Soviet troops left in 1947). They were under duress in the sense that leaving the Communist orbit would have gotten them invaded, but they were not under military occupation after 1958 and 1947, respectively. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Romania's position? What kind of Romania's position? Are you talking about the Soviet occupied Romania, The happy independent communist Romania or the democratic Romania, the member state of the European Union?--Termer 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thisun. Romania, the independent pretty happy socialist state.Anonimu 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
An outrageous myth. Romania was woefully miserable in the 1980s, and in the 1970s, plenty of dissidents or others who dared challenge the Bolshevik grip on power were also very, very unhappy. Biruitorul 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Say Romania was miserable in the 70s and you'll most likely get linched by pensioner and even in proletarian neighborhoods. As for dissidents, as Michael Shafir said, the Romanian dissidence lived in Paris and it was called Paul Goma.Anonimu 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the Soviet occupation of Romania ended in 1958, during the Prague Spring in 1968 Romania might have been an independent pretty happy socialist state if anybody says so. The fact that the happy architect of the happy socialist state was hanged in the end by unhappy people of the socialist Romania has in fact no relevance to the Soviet occupation of Romania and the current article though--Termer 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but's a proof that Byophis' argument was not valid.Anonimu 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In Romania's case indeed. Also Yugoslavia was an independent communist country. So how about adding Romania back to the article according to the facts? Or is the Soviet occupation up to 1958 and on what basis disputed by anybody? Would be appreciated if you could give a crash course on it, you know, we don't really care about Romania in this part of Europe ;-), therefore I must admit, I'm not that familiar with Romania's case and would be good to know what exactly are we dealing with. Thanks!--Termer 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of several international treaties.Anonimu 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
According to a source I am looking at, Romania and North Korea gained independence after a period of Soviet occupation (so it was the occupation), whereas Albania and Yugoslavia were not occupied at all (Soviets tried to organize an internal coup agains Tito after 1948 and against Hoxha in 1961, but failed). There was a constant struggle between the socialist leaders of these "independent" contries and the Soviet Union. Ironically, there were even two attempts to overthrough Fidel Castro, when he refused to subordinate his secrted services to the KGB - also failure. But Fidel agreed when Soviet Union stopped "buying" his sugar. Just look at the sources - everything is there. I simply have no time to do that.Biophys 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me say I quite agree with Richard's thoughtful argument. But I must ask him: do the sources not refer to an occupation? Of course Romania was not "occupied territory" in the way Germany was from 1945 to 1949, but the generally agreed opinion is that the massive Soviet troop presence there did constitute an occupation, albeit of a slightly different flavour where local Communists formally ran the country. The difference between, say, SKorea and the Philippines on the one hand and Romania on the other is that historians do not generally call prolonged US presence in the former an occupation, but they do in regards to the Soviet presence in the latter. Biruitorul 03:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some historians refer to it as an occupation, but only some, and it's not "the generally agreed opinion", as shown by the lack of such concept in the most reliable encyclopedias of today (Britannica, Columbia, etc).Anonimu 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Three phases of post-WWII relationships between Romania and the Soviet Union

OK, I've done some research and I'm sure I still don't know as much as the rest of you but at least I am not as much of an ignoramus as I was a few hours ago.

I've looked at a number of online resources, most of them non-scholarly, but I think it's enough to get a feel for what the situation is. The source that I found most useful is: this one.

It's clear that there were at least three phases of relationship between Romania and the Soviet Union after WWII. The first was "legal occupation" between 1944 and 1946/47. As Hamish and Prete say, "The occcupation lasted legally from the signature of the armistice until February 1947, when peace treaties were signed in Paris..."

The next phase of the relationship involves a nominally independent Romania that is "closely aligned" with the Soviet Union and COMECON. As for Soviet troops, Hamish and Prete say "[after 1947], Soviet troops remained, but on a different legal basis, in Romania and Hungary. The official reason was that (the Soviets) needed to control communications between the Soviet Union and Soviet occupation forces in Austria. This reason disappeared with the conclusion of the Austrian State Treaty in 1955. Instead, Soviet forces remained as Allied troops, and their status was more precisely defined with the signature in 1958 of the Warsaw Pact."

Now, we know that the Soviet troops were pulled out of Romania in 1958 and that Ceausescu took Romania on a path that diverged from COMECON but still remained enough in Khruschev's good graces that Romania never suffered a military incursion as Hungary or Czechoslovakia did.

The point here is that there are at least three phases of relationship between Romania and the Soviet Union. The relationship between 1944 and 1946/47 was clearly one of occupation. After 1958, everyone agrees that there was no more occupation of Romania. However, between 1946/47 and 1958, it's not clear what people call it. As Hamish and Prete state, the "legal occupation" ended. As cited here and in Soviet occupation of Romania, some sources state that the "Soviet occupation" ended in 1958. Others call it a "virtual occupation". Why virtual? Because it had all the earmarks of an occupation except that it wasn't officially one. (And thus my argument that we shouldn't call it an occupation because it wasn't one.)

What's the solution? Here's my proposal...

First, stop getting caught up in what the title of the article says. Let the Soviet occupation of Romania article remain where it is. Mention the entire period of 1944-1958 under this title (i.e. Soviet occupations) but make it clear that there were three phases of relationship and, as I described it, "the period from 1946/47 to 1958 had many of the characteristics of an occupation but was not legally considered to be an occupation". Also add that many historians follow the lead of the current Romanian government in calling the entire period from 1944-1958 an occupation by the Soviet Union.

However, also note that it is unclear whether this characterization is used by "most historians", "many historians" or "some historians". In Soviet occupation of Romania, the text says "most Western historians" but the references simply provide a handful of sources that use the word "occupation" to refer to the period 1944-1958. As someone argued, this could be just cherry-picking. To support the assertion that "most Western historians consider the period 1944-1958 to be a Soviet occupation", you have to find a source that says exactly that i.e. the text has to say "most Western historians blah, blah, blah". Failing that, using the word "most" is OR. Much better to say "many" or just "some".

--Richard 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now we're talking! I fully agree with all your latest points Richard! Thanks--Termer 06:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, this periodization, stating that Soviet presence was technically not an occupation after 1947 (not 1944) is already in the lead of the article. I see nothing new in your proposal, except maybe the difference between pre-1955 and post-1955. I find this last aspect to be a simple technicality, given that Romania was never actually used as the main route to Austria. Dpotop 08:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Second, it is false to say that "many historians follow the lead of the current Romanian government". It's not the lead of the Romanian government. If you take a look at the reference list, you find the Time magazine speaking of a quoted "liberation", and two publications of the US department of state speaking of the Soviet occupation of Romania. These publications pre-date december 1989, when Romanians started to openly criticise the past occupation. I also find quite insulting to assume that all contemporary historians of a democratic country follow the lead of their government. Romania has its problems, but not wideaspread censorship. Dpotop 08:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Finally, as concerns "most" as opposed to "many", I suggest we follow the example of the Holocaust. In that article, too, "most" is OR, because nobody actually counted the guys. But, the widespread oppinion conveyed by scholarship already reviewed says "most". If you challenge this last statement, feel free to add sources. Dpotop 08:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Since most of the data in that article refers to 1947-1958, it is POV to keep the current title for the curent article. Romanian gvt doesn't call it that way, because it will invalidate the peace treaty of 1947. I agree with th "many" or "some" thing.Anonimu 10:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, most of the article refers to 44-47, not 47-58. And that was, by international law, Soviet occupation. Dpotop 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "most" is a bit too relative. But there are full subsections who refer only to 1947-1958.Anonimu 11:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Second, even for 47-58, "occupation" is not POV, because this is how people and historians call it. NPOV must reflect this, not some lawyerly technicalities. For instance, nobody believes Romania was a democracy back then, even though by law it was a "popular democracy". Dpotop 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No, this is how some historians call it. The current title is as bad as "Liberation of Romania".Anonimu 11:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It may be wrong, but it reflects current Western and Romanian scholarship on the issue, i.e. the position of most Western and Romanian historians. Dpotop 12:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, we've established that, "legally", 47-58 wasn't an occupation. However, many if not most of us are of the opinion that it was virtually an occupation in everything but legal name.

So, what we're saying is that "most Western and Romanian historians" ignore the legal distinction between 44-47 and 47-58 and just call the entire period "occupation". We certainly have a handful of sources that say that. Are any of them "authoritative"? That is, can we point at any one of them and say "It wouldn't have been called an occupation in that publication if it wasn't the consensus of most Western and Romanian historians"?

--Richard 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Romania was a sovereign nation after 1947, thing proved by the fact that it was accepted in the UN in 1955, and the fact that the Soviet troops never intervened against anti-govt actions during their stay (unlike american troops in nam, afghanistan or iraq). So I fail to see how the Soviet troops acted as an occupation force after 1947.
Minor note: UN membership proves nothing. Ukraine, for instance, was a founding member of the UN, by itself (not as part of the USSR), yet was an integrant part of the USSR. Dpotop 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

NO, we're saying that we could find some sources that support the occupationist view, but we have no guarantee of scientific consensus. Moreover, the lack of such concept in any respectable traditional encyclopedia makes the neutrality of such view doubtful.Anonimu 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool! So, you participate in making Wikipedia, supposed to be bigger than Britannica, yet would not accept scholarship (history books) and official positions (US, Romanian government official documents) if they are not already in Britannica? Dpotop 17:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, there's a difference between gathering more information on a subject only briefly mentioned in a conventional encyclopedia, and using politically motivated concepts that haven't gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community.Anonimu 18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "no widespread acceptance"? Two governments and all scientific sources but one (i.e. history books, dozens of them) agree, and you tell me there is no consensus? And all your position is based on Communist propaganda from the 1950s, which is continued by Russia for nationalistic purposes? Be serious! Dpotop 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Official position of the Romanian Presidency: The Soviets occupied Romania from 1944 to 1958

I saw earlier that you were interested in the official position of the Romanian government as concerns the existence or not of an occupation.

As it happens, this position is clearly stated in the report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania. This document has been adopted by the Romanian parliament, so it represents the official position of Romania. You can find it here (in Romanian only).

The clear position, repeated at many places in the text, is that the Soviet troops were an occupation army from 1944 to 1958. Dpotop 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the position of the president Traian Basescu and his comission, and had not been adopted by the Parliament, as Dpotop falsely claims. There is only one place, not many, where the soviet troops who left in 1958 are called "occupation army". In the rest of the document, they simply use "Soviet troops" or "Red army".Anonimu 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
So Anonimu, would a position (even a controversial revisionist one or wrong one) by this president suffice for you? Canuckle 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No, because according to the Romanian Constitution, the Parliament is the supreme representative organ of the Romanian people, not the president.Anonimu 13:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. To Anonimu: You are right, not the parliament, nor the government, but the Presidency. Which is better, because international representation is mainly a prerogative of the President. So, it's official. Dpotop 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. The period is called "Soviet occupation" or "occupation" in a dozen of places. In "Adobe Reader", search for "ocupa". Most hits are on the Soviet occupation: citations and original positions of the report. Dpotop 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty of using search to "prove" that "most" historians consider 47-58 to be "Soviet occupation" is that you can easily find dozens of documents which use "Soviet occupation" in the same document as "Romania". But how do you search for documents which discuss the same period of time without using the phrase "Soviet occupation"? Even if you exhaustively researched the topic, it would still be OR because the results of your hard work would not be in a peer-reviewed journal and thus would not be a reliable source. We need to find an authoritative source which uses the phrase "Soviet occupation" in a context which makes it clear that this is the consensus of the academic and political community. Such a source may already have been cited in one of the relevant Wikipedia articles or Talk Pages. --Richard 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Call for presentation of Soviet occupation in arts

Interesting piece by The Economist regarding need to present Soviet occupation on par with Nazi atrocities in movies: Third should be the “Forest brothers” of the Baltic states and western Ukraine, as well as the Polish “Home Army”. They maintained a doomed struggle against the Soviet occupiers in some cases until the late 1950s. The last Estonian partisan, August Sabbe, survived until 1978. Betrayed by traitors in Britain’s MI6 in the late 1940s, their story makes Rambo’s adventures in Indochina seem like Disney-style pap. More here[21] The material can be used as source in legacy section regarding lack of knowledge about the situation in the West and ongoing process of documenting the Soviet occupiation of various countries post-WW2. --Molobo 17:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Valuable site

A very valuable site regarding relations between Soviet Union and occupied regions: [22] The Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security (PHP, the former Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact), provides new scholarly perspectives on contemporary international history by collecting, publishing, and interpreting formerly secret governmental documents. In response to the declassification of NATO records and the growing availability of documents from archives in Eastern and Central Europe, PHP as a cooperative undertaking of more than twenty partner institutes brings together leading Cold War historians, archivists, and government officials. The findings are presented to the specialist academic community at conferences and published both in print and on the PHP website. Since its establishment in 1999, the project has collected thousands of pages of material on security-related issues of the Cold War, published a large number of online documentaries and publications on central issues such as mutual threat perceptions and alliance management, and organized several major international conferences on war lanning, intelligence, and intra-bloc tensions.The thrust of PHP research interest is in the recent historical origins and development of current security issues and institutions on the basis of newly available documentary evidence.

Numerous sources exist on the site that I am certain will help us expand the article.

--Molobo 17:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Korea

The Soviet occupation of North Korea, though short-lived, should definitely be either detailed here or in its own separate article. As I see no links to such a topic either in a "See Also" section nor even in the Soviet Occupations template, am I right in assuming that such an article doesn't exist? LordAmeth 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. It lasted several years if I remember correctly. There is no such article. The initial agreement about separation of North and South Korean territories was concluded between Soviet Union and US. Stalin still controlled Korea even after withdrawal the Soviet military forces, so his order was needed to start the Korean War.Biophys 15:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.