It seems the pro-Kremlin narrative has finally won on Wikipedia and everyone born in the Baltic states during the Soviet occupation now has in their infobox place of birth as "Soviet Union" or "Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian SSR", thus legitimizing Soviet rule instead of considering it an illegal occupation by which Soviet rule was legally null and void from beginning to end.
There was a clear policy change in December 2025 that barely anyone from the Baltic states noticed - the decision was made entirely behind our back and sadly we seem to have too little collective power to influence such decisions.
If you think that this isn't part of a wider pro-Kremlin information campaign, then you are wrong. Portraying our people as Soviet people despite us being the most vehemently anti-Soviet/Kremlin nations on the planet gives weight to any Kremlin claims over our territory.
vatniks wants us to be them so bad they change wikipedia to include us 😂 we all are like: no thanks
Nobody seems to care what we think. Wikipedia will go over our heads and will portray our people as Soviet people despite the Soviet occupation being pretty much universally considered as illegal nowadays.
I have bin in Finland in 2019, visiting libraries and one of them had librarians dedicated 20% there time working on Wikipedia correcting things constantly cuz russians were trying to change there history.. I hope with bigger security budgets there will come some investments in information warfare, but for that to happen there is a long way to go. Thanks for your effort pointing things out.
And how many of them would be capable in arguing against the general policy decisions on Wikipedia? Because right now if we reverted those edits, we would be against the new policy and would get banned.
It is a long war not a battle, and there is no easy solution it's a hard one. For that we have to elect people with competence and for that we have to take responsibility join the ranks and educate people around us. russia is doing it for decades we will need decades of constant effort to undo that.. and it starts here with you and me and others..
Like reconquest ?
It was only matter of time that Russia and other bad actors turn wikipedia into info op. Too easy to do, with most of the admins being sympathisers of anti western actors. Anything about Russian colonialism gets removed in minutes and really angry people come at you. I tried to fix mistakes about education system in Soviet union - Baltic states having higher level of education before the war etc. They really didn't like facts about the enforced Russian language teaching to non Russian children. In Estonia Russian was first as a "voluntary" mandatory subject, that schools were expected to show good results. Then in the end of the 1970s real russification started. There were new regulations that started to enforce more Russian language. Mandatory Russian started from grade one and there were experimental kindergartens where they started teaching Russian already to 5 year olds.
You are part of the Soviet Union for half a century. That is facts. No amount of coping, crying, and malding can change the fact that you were Soviets. Look around your panel block home lmao.
*Occupied by Russia
We were illegally occupied by the Soviet Union and thus never legally a part of the USSR. Learn some basic history and international law and stop spreading Kremlin propaganda!
Such a typical xenophobic tankie rhetoric.
Exactly - were. And thanks but no more. We didn’t like it. Soviets can stay soviets. Soviets are crying right now, desperately trying to convince world Baltics belong ti them. We are and will be ourselves, belonging to the modern western civilization.
checks profile
Yep checks out, disgusting onion detected
What was the former formulation of the place of birth like? At least on Latvian Wikipedia, the place of birth is formed like this: "Dobele, Latvijas PSR, PSRS (tagad Latvija)".
Btw, there are some additional pro-vatnik changes in English Wikipedia - for example, on Latvian Wikipedia, the first sentence goes like this: "The Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (Latvian SSR) was a Soviet socialist republic established on the territory of occupied Latvia on 21 July 1940 and was annexed by the USSR on 5 August 1940". (translated, of course).
Meanwhile, the introductory sentence on the English Wikipedia goes like this: "The Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (Also known as the Latvian SSR, or Soviet Latvia) was a constituent republic of the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1941, and then from 1944 until 1990."
Assuming that the average foreigner wanting to know about Latvian SSR will read Wikipedia in English and he's going to read only the first sentence, it makes an impression that Latvia joined USSR voluntarily, without any occupation, arrests, deportations or anything similar.
Mostly people born in Estonia had the style of just "Estonia" and we had to fight the pro-Kremlin users for more than a decade on this subject while Latvian and Lithuanian articles mostly had the style of "Latvian SSR" and "Lithuanian SSR" to begin with.
Exactly.
I crossposted to the r/wikipedia sub. As a person with an interest in Baltic culture but not an expert of any sort, others may want to follow up or start a new topic.
Wikipedia subreddit seems to be full of ruzzian propaganda supporters unfortunately.
Post was already deleted?
Seems so.
“ This post has been removed. Submissions relating to personal editing conflicts on Wikipedia, or asking others to make edits for you, are generally not allowed. Conflict resolution should take place on-wiki, and r/wikipedia is not the place to rally people to your side.”
This is basically how every argument on this topic goes on Wikipedia. Some obscure reference to a past detailed policy decision which you could only understand if Wikipedia had been your life for the past 10 years.
Thanks, but to be honest, I have little faith in that. Both Reddit and Wikipedia seem to be littered with pro-Kremlin users...
Useless. Wiki is so much full of western tankies who love communism and Russia. Living in their mom's basements they spent their life arguing in wiki.
What will they write on that Canadian communist "GoodDay" grave: "He spent 15 years in Wikipedia arguing with people from Baltic states to get the name of their colonial master's illegal entity written on every person's biography born under the occupation."
This all started with a wave of banning users from Baltic states. Randomly. Some mods were just going around and banning users editing Estonian articles. In most cases they were just said to be sockpuppets of some random long ago banned user. Sockpuppet things allows to ban tens of users at once without any evidence and roll back hundreds of their edits. My friend who hadn't logged in for two years discovered that they had been recently banned. Hard to do anything when there are mods that have strong POV on the case. It's mostly pointless to argue. You got 10 users randomly going to argue against you, mostly using AI-language massive walls of text to make it impossible to reach anywhere.
Do not try to step in that shit. Bare fact - a man/woman who was born on territory of nowadays Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania was an USSR citizen. It's normal to write a real place of birth according to the moment of birth. It's not a politucs.
For instance, a man can be a son of Adolf Hitler. Later he can change his surname, meanwhile at his birth certificate it gonna be written:
Mom - Eva Braun Dad - Addy Hitler
Even if his actual name is - John Smith.
Incorrect. Soviet citizenship was legally null and void for citizens of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as they were under an illegal Soviet occupation and they restored their independence based on legal continuity.
Stop legitimizing Soviet rule! You are a brainwashed tankie!
One of the people advocating for SSR in the infoboxes kept spelling Tallinn with 1 "n" as well
Tallinn with one N is basically Russian Kiev instead of Kyiv for Estonia. The origin is that in 1940 Russian put in charge of transliterating Estonian place names from latin to cyrillic letters was illiterate. Or did the list listening the names from a phone.
All double letters, that Estonian has a lot of, were written with one letter, and there were all kinds of errors. These really confusing, so that even Estonian communists complained. And complained. And complained. Finally in 1972 the Main Administration of Geodesy and Cartography of the USSR accepted the fixed transliterations sent by the Soviet estonian puppet government and all the names were fixed, except some drunkard wrote Tallinn with one N.
In 1920s and 1930s and in early 1990s russians actually wrote Tallinn. But then in 1995 someone in Russian government noticed that there's some unauthorized freedom in Russia how place names are written and mandate of using the soviet time spelling of place names for certain places was sent out this included rechopping the n off from Tallinn. There's no problem in Russian to write Bonn with two N's etc. Russian mostly uses double letters where there are double letters.
That's really interesting
Hmm, what a weird coincidence.
That's a little pro-imperialistic of them.
It's blatant Kremlin propaganda, just whitewashing Russia's imperialistic crimes.
Could someone why knows history check if this philosophy applies to other countries, too?
Like, I can see an article about an Indian dude. His birthplace is listed as "British India". Is that kind of equivalent?
If yes, then it does seem like a blanket, worldwide pro imperialist policy. A policy that only someone from a very privileged country would come up with. How hard is it to write "India (British India)" or something?
It's not entirely comparable. Even though colonialism was condoned later, British India was legally a British territory. The same way Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were legally part of the Russian Empire.
This is fundamentally different from the Soviet occupation as international law had changed sufficiently in the mean time and invading other sovereign states became illegal.
Yeah, that's true. We have continuity from before the occupation. But foreigners editing Wikipedia probably won't care.
Also, I don't like "The same way Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were legally part of the Russian Empire." either. Wikipedia should always show the current country imo.
Heck, they seem to care to push our enemy's narrative...
Yeah, possible, but it could get misleading in many historical circumstances.
Support for Russia is everywhere.
Reddit is certainly supporting Russia.
And not just the Mods of sub-Reddits.
Reddit admin as well.
Whoever is behind this, can probably be traced back.
According to almost any country (except for Russia visa application - you have a choice to select you were born in USSR or Lithuania) your place of birth is not the SSR Republic.
I mean, the best way to fix it, is to fix it yourself. Ukrainian moderators did it successfully, you can read their stories and posts on Wikipedia wars.
It's a massive undertaking when you don't know much about Wikipedia's internal politics.
This also means that everybody born in Crimea, Donbas and other occupied Ukrainin territories will have "Crimea, Russian Federation", Donetsk, People's Republic of Donbas, Russia" written in their bio.
That is the reason pro-russians did this. 2014 was 12 years ago. Some years on, we'll see first people born in occupied parts of Ukraine getting in the age where first people with articles start to appear. Russia is very big in sports like figure skating, rhythmic gymnastics where very young athletes compete 14-years old already compete in olympics. Russia had Kamila Valieva, born 2006, in 2022 Beijing olympics.
Wikipedia has been taken over by Vatniks
Vatnikpedia.
Wikipedofiles
Wikipaedia can go f itself. In my passport is written - place of birth LIETUVA, and was born before independence. Call it what you like. WE know where we're born and WHO we are.
*before restoration of independence
of course :D
I’m done contributing to Wikipedia then.
they simply love dirty kremlin money. that's simple.
If you follow links on top seems like there is argument on if this can be considered consensus still not marked as closed, although nobody has added to it since 9th December as far as I saw, plus the closed discussion suggests they support option to include note about occupation.
This has been Wikipedia's general policy for ages, though, it makes sense in most cases, especially the more historic and far away from moder countries it gets. On Latvian Wikipedia, though, the approach is to say birthplace X (now Y), which is more informative, although still doesn't show there was occupation.
It is pretty pointless to discuss, though, you need to be involved in editing Wikipedia to get your way, if nobody is going to change those infoboxes the discussion has zero value.
The issue is that these discussions are dominated by pro-Kremlin users and they don't take the local official positions of our democratic countries into account.
If they change the policy, then they can change all the infoboxes and we would get banned if we change them back.
It is also against policy to look for Baltic users on random sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing Your approach is wrong for getting your way.
And you are saying that those pro-Kremlin users are not systematically doing the same?
Why are you so desperately defending these pro-Kremlin propagandist?
The same with Ukrainians or Polish famous people
Not the same. Baltic states became independent in 1918. The 1940 occupation was occupation of three independent states, that continued to exist under the occupation. They had diplomats working and recognized in western countries. Embassies and consulates. They held onto their gold reserves. For any sense they were existing states under the occupation. Russia did violate all the international laws and all the treaties that were in force between Soviet Union and Baltic states. In this Russia never had legitimate claim over Baltic states. Baltic states restored their independence declaring all forms of soviet state organs null and void from the start. Ukraine was legitimate part of Soviet Union, that declared independence in 1991.
Baltic states had already in the 1980s started to reject Soviet claims on them. Estonian parliament declared sovereignty on 16 November 1988, Lithuania on 26 May 1989 and Latvia on 28 July 1989.
But already before demands of independence had begun. Like Father of Kaja Kallas, Siim Kallas with three other guys had published already in 1987 a plan for self sufficient Estonia, calling for economic independence from Russia. Article about Siim is very much guarded by the pro Russian trolls in wiki, in an effort to portray him as some kind of Soviet megaboss, not a mid level bureaucrat, who became notable in the circle of pro independence people.
Not exactly the same as these territories had been legally a part of Poland or the Ukrainian SSR.
I’m sorry if I come off as ignorant and offensive, but I don’t quite understand the problem. To be clear: I think (and honestly it’s a matter of fact, not an opinion) that USSR illegitimately occupied three Baltic countries and forcefully integrated them into itself. It was unlawful and had terrible consequences, that I don’t intend to challenge, I’m not brain dead. But even when someone was born in some extremely short-lived self-proclaimed state not recognized by anyone (or very little number of other states), Wikipedia usually states it as their country of birth. Since USSR was at the time (again, unlawfully and with terrible doings) the authority controlling the Baltics, Wikipedia states it as the place of births for certain individuals. I don’t see how it legitimizes USSR’s annexation of three Baltic countries or makes it look any better. If anyone could explain their different point of view, I’d be glad to read it.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were different than other Soviet Republics because they were internationally never recognized as part of Soviet Union. All three states had recognized diplomatic missions operating in the west. Estonia for example had Ernst Jaakson, who served as consul from 1965-1991, and as the longest serving foreign diplomatic representative in the US, was for years the dean of the diplomatic corps.
As states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania existed also during the occupation, Russians controlled the territory physically while legally it was still Republic of Estonia. Welles Declaration - US refused to recognize annexation of Baltic states into the Soviet Union.
If someone has been born in Crimea or Donbass under Russian occupation, should they also be just said to be born In "Crimea, Russia"?
Maps printed in US had a note on them The United States does not recognize the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the U.S.S.R. And all US Newspapers kept calling them Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, that are under the soviet occupation.. They never used "Estonian SSR" wiki wants to go by the sources then why they just look at the newspapers in congress library. None of the contemporary us sources use the SSRs.
https://preview.redd.it/eacfpo8nzl9g1.png?width=1262&format=png&auto=webp&s=d08aa71b79cda881b3d88eb5a060c2a683749246
The radical left moderators on Wikipedia would probably interpret that as some anti-communist hysteria in the US.
The more you know 😅
About diplomatic missions – wow, I didn’t know that, thanks. It does change the perspective for me somewhat.
About somebody born in Crimea or Donbass – an hour ago I’d say yes, again, only due to the philosophy of “whoever de-facto occupies the territory – we write them on Wikipedia”. But now I’ve learned that it’s not that easy thanks to the convo I had here. So now I don’t know what should be written here. I think it should be informative and not endorsing anything. Writing “Crimea, Russia” would be informative (due to Crimea changing de-facto control), but now I’m not sure if it does or doesn’t endorse Russia’s actions. So maybe “Crimea (annexed Ukrainian territory (by Russia))” would actually be better. I’m not sure anymore
Yep, things aren't black and white in life. And then some westerners try to solve very complicated historical problems without having any knowledge of history, besides "Soviet Onion cool."
What about wartime? The front ran over Estonia for almost the entire 1944. Soviet forces crossed the Narva river in February, on 18th september acting Estonian president appointed new cabinet in Tallinn that mostly managed to escape to Sweden. That was the gap between Germans leaving and Russians coming and taking over. on 22nd sept Russians took Tallinn. Russians have Germans to thank that there weren't more resistance as Germans did not agree to give Estonian resistance weapons. There were clashed between Germans and Estonian resistance.
On December Russians took over the last islands. So we have to put down for every day where the front ran. If somebody was born under German occupation, or Soviet occupation or on the few days between... And then the areas that no one controlled like many islands. Soviet forces arrived on Ruhnu island on 19th December 1944.
Then there is the gradual nature of the end of the occupation. The Supreme Soviet of Estonian SSR declared occupation illegal and void already at the beginning of 1990 and restored the name of the state as Republic of Estonia with blue-black and white flag and other state symbols, and started the transitional period for restoration of independence which happened on 20th August 1991.
The Supreme Soviet of Estonian SSR themselves named themselves to Supreme council of Republic of Estonia.
The government themselves had been renamed already in 1989 from the Council of Ministers to the Government. Indrek Toome who started as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Estonian SSR became Prime Minister of the Estonian SSR, but in the confusion the title "Chairman of the Government of Republic of Estonia" was also used often mixing the two systems.
So from early 1990- to august 1991 it was Republik of Estonia, that themselves declared being under illegal occupation and the constitution was Estonian constitution of 1938.
Sorry for long post.
I understand that the world isn’t black and white. I just treated Wikipedia as a source of “fast-food information” – easy to access, not too detailed or nuanced, pretty surface level facts, going deeper at times. Hence my assumption on how it treated places of birth and death. But I was wrong and it was more nuanced than I thought. Obviously, using “Soviet Onion cool” as any kind of rule, guideline or justification is wrong, I’ve never claimed otherwise. I just didn’t know the level of nuance Wikipedia uses in those things and didn’t see how it could legitimize occupation of the Baltics States. Now I see both better
Wiki is fast food of information is pretty good summary. It's small and pointless thing, but the timing that right now some people decided that this is the problem they need to "solve". It's stressful enough living next to Russia. Waiting when they start to bomb us. I hear many people discussing how and where to escape when it happens. I'm a conscript on reserve. I know where I have to go, but what about my family. But it's fun and games for some Canadian communist wiki admins.
That’s valid. I really really hope that whatever sick fucks in charge of my country think, that the Baltics will not suffer from them. Or anyone else. And obviously hoping that the horrors happening in Ukraine would end ASAP. Please stay safe out there
You have a Russia flair... Of course you don't understand the problem...
Does it legitimately do this with Nazi occupations as well? Because Soviets = Nazis.
Do Russians born in Nazi-occupied USSR get assigned a Nazi administrative unit as their place of birth?
Wikipedia also lists Korean president Park Chung Hee's place of birth as Empire of Japan, and Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh's place of birth as French Indochina.
These were all legal territories according to the international law in place at the time.
According to the international law in place in 1940-1991, the Soviet occupation in the Baltic states was illegal and the Soviet rule legally null and void from beginning to end. Thus we were never a part of the Soviet Union.
So Anyone born in Crimea from 2014 should just have Crimea, Russian Federation as birth place, without any note that no one recognizes such formulation... Anyone born in Donetsk - Donetsk, Donbas People's Republic. etc?
Do you think that me having Russia flair physically changes my brain or something?
About your question about Nazi-occupied parts of USSR I don’t know, let me check
It makes you non-objective in this particular question by default.
Of course applies to all Poles, Frenchmen and Norwegians etc. born under Nazi occupation.
I'm not sure how biased should I be, I am not fan of either USSR or current Russian regime, but I see your point, thanks. I'm sorry for being rude in my previous comment.
As for Nazi-occupied territories of USSR, sometimes Wikipedia does list such people as born under Nazi occupation (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitaliy\_Khmelnytskyi), sometimes not (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan\_Bokyi). So it isn't consistent
I'd like to see if this was the case with someone born in the Russian SFSR.
There's not too many people who were actually born or dead in Reichskommissariat Moskowien, but it doesn't prove me right or anything. Only usage I've found is on this russian wiki page, where it's stated that the person actually died in Reichskommissariat Moskowien, nor RSFSR. English version, however, does state RSFSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Kulik (just in case, russian version: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA,\_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B4\_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87)
As a sidenote, I've found this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes, where one of the person states: "None of your listed occupations are "black and white". You provided an example of Golan Heights and Bezalel Smotrich: the occupation is almost universally condemned and unrecognised (with the very recent exception of USA), but Israel de facto controls the territory for more than half a century (– that's longer than the Baltic states were occupied), yet in the infobox we do not have "Haspin, Golan Heights, Israel". This seems inconsistent with your position. If de facto control would be the sole determining aspect, then should people born in Kaluga in December 1941 have Reichskommissariat Moskowien as their birthplace? Kyiv – Reichskommissariat Ukraine, Amsterdam – Reichskommissariat Niederlande and so on? FWIW, the armed resistance in the Baltic states lasted until early 1953 (see Guerrilla war in the Baltic states). Ultimately, each occupation should probably be considered on case by case basis and, more to the point, de facto control is not the sole basis we use." It proves me wrong in my understanding of how Wikipedia treats birthplaces and death places, it's not simply always "whoever de-facto controlled the place of birth/death at the time", so my logic was based on wrong assumptions either way. I apologize
Do you think it should just be "Estonia"/"Latvia"/"Lithuania" for people who were born/who died in the Baltics in 1945-1991, or do you have something else in mind?
Do not forget that the USSR occupied the Baltic states in 1940, before the Nazis...
Otherwise, "Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania" would be both correct and simple. I could go with a compromise of "Estonia (Soviet occupation)" or something like that, but there is no room for legitimizing "Estonian SSR" or claiming that Estonian territory was "Soviet Union".
Sorry about 1945, my mistake. I definitely need to improve my knowledge of USSR expansion, as you can guess the way I was taught about it in school was not too objective or focused on things even our propaganda has hard time jusitfying.
Your suggestions make sense to me. I feel like "Estonia (Soviet occupation)" is good since it provides additional info for dummies like me who don't remember occupation timeline by heart, but I shouldn't have any weight in deciding this anyway, I'm merely expressing an opinion. Thank you very much for engaging with me and explaining your point of view, I've actually learned something from this convo, that doesn't happen too often on reddit. Have a great day, and hopefully wikipedia changes its approach to this.
The flair in the current situation is kinda a symptom. Not a cause.
I’m sorry, I don’t think I understand. Could you please elaborate?
Sorry, but there are very few cases where anti-government Russians are truly against Russian imperialism. We vehemently don't trust Russians, including those who claim to be part of the opposition.
It’s understandable, considering the past and present. I promise that my question is of genuine curiosity and trying to better understand your view of this, not to undermine it or anything
Yeah it's fine.
Yes they do think that
For a good reason.
If you look up the article on Gammalsvenskby, they added a claim that is actually marked as having no citation to back it up, that the Estonian Swedes deported from Hiiumaa weren't actually deported by Catherine the Great and left to take advantage of some wonderful deal
Oh ffs. Russia truly is cancer.
Well change them back. The occupation was not legally recognized
Wikipedia changed its policy. It would be quite a challenge to win an argument in the depths of Wikipedia policies if you're not an active user. If we change these back on our own right now, we would be banned (either users or IP addresses).
I will be happy to law out the legal structure of why their half assed discussion is wrong.
Ironically, Wikipedia has a very nice article laying out how the Baltic States had continuityduring occupation and only the Soviet Union and its colonies suggested otherwise.
In case of international law regarding the illegality of the occupation, I require no assistance. But I find the inner policies of Wikipedia a much more complicated framework than international law.
Yep, but few people ever get there. It's a lot easier for active pro-Kremlin users to change such detailed inside policies that have to be approved by users from third countries who know jack shit about the subject.
Cool. I wonder how we should go about campaigning to change this. DM me if you want help.
Honestly I spent years on this already and we managed to just keep away a harsh standardization towards "USSR". Right now it surprised me that there was a discussion and basically nobody from the Baltic states was even present in the discussion. Largely I think that this is a lost battle. Nothing about the criminal Russian nation has ever been fair of course.
Wow. I had no idea. I appreciate what you have done
There us a heavy inconsistency depending on the country:
Ivars Georgs Jansons 14 January 1943 Riga, Reichskommissariat Ostland, Nazi Germany (now Riga, Latvia)
While:
Lech Wałęsa 29 September 1943(age 82) Popowo, German-occupied Poland
But Vichy France is just France:
Johnny Hallyday
Born Jean-Philippe Léo Smet 15 June 1943 Paris, France
Like it or not but that is a fact. My father has Latvian SSR birth certificate, it was simply government that gave him such and there is nothing he or you can do about it. My first passport was with blue covers without EU written on it but now I have carmine and one with EU on it and, again, can't do anything about it. If I had wikipedia page and tommorow my country unites with other Baltic nations into one country with completely different system, I still would be born in "Latvian Republic" and not this new fictional one. And I seriously doubt Kremlin has anything to do with Wikipedia pages of famous people or how and where they were born.
Soviet occupation is a fact, the Soviet rule having been legitimate is not.
Illegal occupation authorities giving out illegal documents... Again, nobody denies that here was Soviet rule - but that was Soviet occupation and thus we weren't part of the Soviet Union.
Learn some basic history and stop spreading Kremlin propaganda!
That would be a legitimate decision by our states, unlike the Soviet occupation.
You are so fucking naive...
I've noticed for Lithuanians it was always Lithuanian SSR when I looked at Wikipedia page even before policy change. For Estonians it felt cool it was just Estonia if you born between 1945-1991.
For those who born after 1991, at least some of us may feel conflicted about USSR legacy and talks about "restoration of Soviet Union" and some of 1991+ born generation never been to Belarus/Russia as well. Generation can also be potentially blamed why they know English better than Russian.
What?
[removed]
Field?
Checked
Gitanas Nausėda
It does not legitimise it, just stating the administration which issued the birth certificate. It's the same for (former) GDR citizens.
It absolutely legitimizes it. Saying that an Estonian territory was "part of the USSR" is pure Kremlin propaganda.
If you want to go by the "birth certificate" then it's really easy. All three states exstisted legally even during the occupation. All three states declared all soviet institutions including the use of the names of SSRs null and void in 1990. Eg any reissued birth certificate would have Republic of Estonia in them.
Estonian born under the occupation if they managed to escape, could go to some Estonian diplomatic representation and ask for documents issued by the state of Estonia.
Estonian passport issued in 1952.
https://preview.redd.it/1xwqtxmwcq9g1.png?width=1254&format=png&auto=webp&s=52c0caa0a2e168f09f0b11ed246ad4d724c1a50c
Let's not make historical revisionism. If a person was born under occupation or some unrecognized state, let's not whitewash it into something else. There's also an alternative - completely get rid of any states in the place of birth/death... like they did with Thomas Dixon Jr, but this reduces the information value.
p.s. I absolutely don't want it to turn out like "Chiang Kai-shek died in the PRC, since the Republic of China is not recognized by most countries in the world" bullshit. Such politicization of history will lead to the glossing over of inconvenient moments in history.
What I stated is a historical fact, an official position of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania which is recognized by almost the entire world bar genocidal Russia.
Stop whitewashing Soviet crimes and legitimizing Soviet rule in the Baltics!
https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/
They already deleted a discussion on that subject.
I know this is a sensitive topic for us, but I feel like this is not something to be outraged about to the point of calling Wikipedia "pro-Kremlin" as some comments implied here.
Writing the country/administrative regime which de facto ruled the place at the time where someone was born has been the English Wiki standard for as long as I can remember. International recognition of the occupation of that certain place doesn't play part because it would get reaaaaally flimsy and controversial for quite a few people, if not outright impossible for those born before WW1 when common global institutions which could set the standards for international recognition of countries and their territories didn't even exist. So doing it any other way would be confusing at best and outright ahistorical at worst because, as illegal as the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States was, Baltic governments at the time did not de facto administer a single piece of their own territory. The context of the place where someone was born is also often important for their biography, and not following this standard would risk removing that context.
The same standard is followed for every previously occupied territory, whether it was by USSR, Austro-Hungary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomáš\_Masaryk), Russian Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas\_Basanavičius) or Nazi Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimira\_Prunskienė) and, in some cases, even different forms of government of the same independent country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre\_Bergé). Even short-lived occupation administrations which were never intended to be permanent (e.g. Allied occupation of Germany in 1945-49) are shown in those infoboxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joschka\_Fischer).
It's not a perfect standard and in some cases it's not even followed consistently (e.g. the place of birth of some French people born in independent France before the 5th republic is noted as "France" whereas for others it's "2nd/3rd/4th French Republic"), but I genuinely can't think of any other way to objectively standartise this without either making Wikipedia a confusing and unreliable source of information or, in a worse case, ruffling a lot of bad feathers that would use this precedent to promote their own versions of history.
"because it would get reaaaaally flimsy and controversial"
And just naming the occupier is flimsy and controversial, because it wasn't like the state names and status changed overnight.
For Lithuania they declared restoration of independence, on 11 March 1990, but Soviet Union did not recognize it until 6 September 1991. So what do you call Lithuania between these dates. Lithuanian SSR as did moscow or Republic of Lithuania as did Lithuania themselves.
Estonia was more careful, after the 1988 declaration of sovergnity, on 29 March 1990 Estonian parliament passed the act to declare transitional period to independence. Announcing the use of the name Republic of Estonia and state symbols of Estonia, instead of the soviet symbols. Soviet occupation was deemed illegal and void. The territory of Estonia was deemed to be under occupation. What name to use for this period between - when Estonian parliament itself had declared that the Estonian SSR was illegal and the official name of the state is Republic of Estonia - and 20 August 1991 when the independence was restored and 6 September when Soviet Union recognized Estonian independence?
Latvia declared independence on 4 May 1990... what should the state be called between that and 6th of September 1991.
Gorbachev was against all of this. On one hand the called these acts illegal and void (Violations of constitutions of baltic SSR that parliaments of Baltic states had declared legally void from their adoption) on the other hand he demanded revocation of these acts that he had already declared void. In his actions he declared economic blaocade on Lithuania, and went as far as to send army against civilians. Soviet OMON gangs were attacking and burning down border posts that Baltic states were setting up.
Very flimsy all. on one hand states that said that soviet state names and constitutions were never applicable, and in Estonian case started to use officially Republic of Estonia name before restoration of independence. And on the other hand Moscow who did not recognize these changes. Moscow had control over its army in the states, but not political control over parliaments and governments. Baltic states were restoring their state organs. For example Estonian police was restored almost a year before and started functioning replacing soviet militia half a year before Estonia restored independence. Flimsy, very flimsy. Soviet regognition came on 6th september 1991, when they didn't control even Russia anymore. Flimsy.
Oh ffs, you people still don't get it on a fundamental level.
The Soviet occupation was illegal, Soviet rule here was legally null and void. It was always Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania, even during Soviet occupation. It was never the Soviet Union.
Stop legitimizing Soviet crimes!
I mean, it’s not really incorrect, even though it feels wrong. If you were born in the Baltics anytime between 1940 and 1990, you were born in one of the Baltic SSR’s. That’s just how it were.
Just like my relatives were born in Czechoslovakia, it was a political entity that existed at the time, even if we don’t like it. It might be used as political propaganda now, but it still isn’t incorrect .
But it's only half of the story. Baltic states were never recognized as part of the Soviet Onion. Baltic states existed even under the occupation. There were diplomatic missions and governments in exile.
"political entity that existed at the time" Baltic republics existed at the time even if some don't like it.
Independence was restored. And it wasn't just that one day it was Estonian SSR, Soviet Union and the next day Republic of Estonia. It was gradual process that took years. In 1990, more than a year before Estonia restored independence
And Lithuanians were one step ahead of us in these processes.
It's blatantly incorrect, it's age-old Kremlin propaganda.
Stating it just "Soviet Union" or "Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian SSR" without any further context is just legitimizing Soviet rule as these three sovereign states *were never part of the Soviet Union.
This is not the same. Czechia and Slovakia both recognize the legitimacy of Czechoslovakia - we don't recognize the legitimacy of Soviet rule in our countries and neither does most of the world. Please learn basic history and international law before you enter into such discussions.
The same goes for any Croatian artist born before 1991, and I don't see a big deal. I honestly didn't know your countries were under occupation but it doesn't change the fact that it was indeed the USSR. You cannot change history just because you dislike it.
Croatia was a legal part of Yugoslavia, heck you are all even South Slavs.
We were under an illegal Soviet occupation and we want jack shit to do with the genocidal Soviets/Russians.
Then why do you have the nerve to take part in such discussions?
That literally does change it - Soviet rule here was legally null and void from beginning to end, meaning we were never a part of the USSR.
We are not changing history - it was the Soviet occupation. Nobody is denying that. What brainwashed people like you are doing however is legitimizing the Soviet rule here.
Just curious as I am new to this, but what makes the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states “illegal”? Who or what was the governing authority to proclaim it illegal?
International law which was in place in 1940.
International law was made by sovereign states, so Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the USSR in this case. They all joined the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Litvinov Protocol.
Thanks
Whole of international law at the time. In conventional law they violated all the treaties that were in force between Baltic states and Soviet Union in 1940. In the customary law they violated all basic principles - respect of state sovereignty and independence, prohibition of violent seizure of territory and prohibition of intervention.
The armed resistance - guerrilla war in the Baltic states lasted until mid 1950s - and the existence of state organs in exile - diplomatic missions continued to exist, governments in exile, memberships of international organizations - ment that Soviet union never had any legitimate claim over Baltic states.
Russians just marched into fully independent states - members of League of Nations - with whom they had signed peace treaties and non aggression treaties. How and what can be questioned here?
Yes understood now thanks.
Sorry but you cannot change the history… you may hate the USSR but it was legimate country recognized by most of world so people born there were born there. And people born in first half of 1940s in baltics were likely born in The Third Reich too. That’s how things were, simply. Wikipedia is about facts, not agenda. If country was occupied - then it didn’t exist as independent place anymore until it regained the independence.
Why is this the go-to argument of every Kremlin-brainwashed person? NOBODY is trying to change history here, I am very vocal about the fact that the Soviet occupation happened. What you are doing however is legitimizing Soviet rule.
The USSR was obviously recognized - even Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania recognized it. Yet Soviet rule in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was not universally recognized, in fact, quite the opposite!
And is Wikipedia consistent with this? Do they show French people or Norwegians born during this era as born in the Nazi administrative units?
Yet what constitutes a fact in this question is pure Kremlin propaganda. Ironic that you don't want such facts being decided by agenda if your arguments follow Kremlin agenda 100%.
I am confused so you are saying that you recognized that USSR is a country, but that the Soviet rule was not recognized by Baltic states? Like do you mean like how Taiwan is saying that they are the legitimate Chinese government and that the CCP is not recognized by Taiwan as a legitimate ruler?
What are you talking about? Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania recognized Soviet Russia (and its successor Soviet Union) in 1920. And the USSR recognized us back.
In 1940, the Soviet Union illegally occupied our sovereign states, of course we didn't recognize that.
Taiwan claims to be a part of China. They are in dispute over a different government within the same sovereign state. This is fundamentally different case. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have since 1918/1920 always been separate sovereign states from the USSR.
But that’s what I am confused about you said Soviet Union illegally occupied the Baltic’s states. But isn’t occupation of another country illegal by itself. Or is there a legal occupation of a country?
There are indeed legal occupations. First, historically almost all occupations were legal if land was conquered during a legal war (i.e. declared war back then). This started to change gradually (incl. between the Baltic states and the USSR) in the 1930s and changed basically universally by 1945.
Secondly, there were later legal occupations in the form of UN Trust Territories, but these too haven't existed for a long time in practice.
Third, the UN Security Council can mandate an occupation - basically a case like that was the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, although a local legal government was set up pretty quickly.
Fourth, you are allowed to conquer territory if your country (or your ally) was attacked by another and it is necessary for military need. Basically the case of the Allies occupying Germany at the end of WW2.
Fifth is more theoretical and more argued - conquering territory in defence against an imminent attack. Of course such an attack is difficult to determine by outsiders and it's even less likely that conquering your enemy's territory in such case falls under military necessity.
I see thanks, so the first point there is no such a thing as a legal war since you can only declare war for self defense or UN security decision. So there is no way to have a legal occupation from 1st point anymore. Also for 5th point conquering territory for defense. Can you say that the nazi-Soviet pact on devision of Poland fits the bill, since they invade it due to imminent attack on each other. Also in case of central Asian countries does it also count as a illegal occupation or what, because during the Russian revolution they all had their own photo-state/national identity before losing the Bolshevik’s?
I mean, these examples make them legal wars, but you got the principle. Also, you don't need to "declare" a war nowadays to make it legal.
I can see some theoretical limited cases. Let's see your enemy is moving forces into a border area with a clear intent to immediately attack you. In certain cases, you could cut off that border area, making it harder for the enemy to attack you from there. But of course, such case would be short-lived and it would be difficult to argue that you were in the right instead of being the aggressor yourself. But such is the case with preemptive self-defence in general.
So they attacked Poland in an alliance, took out the middleman and established a long border and had common victory parades and this was a preemptive defense against one another?
Does not really compute.
It's certainly complicated and the same goes for the Bolshevik invasions of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania during our wars of independence. These had been legally Russian/Soviet territory, but on the other hand, the right to self-determination also exists in international law. But if it was legally arguable in 1918-1920, then it stopped being arguable after 1920 when Russia legally recognized their independence.
Okay, good information. Thanks
Occupation cannot be legal or illegal since it literally means taking over the area by force and removing the former government. You seething about the “legitimizing” is same case as literally any other occupation ever. What is even legitimate occupation? Were they supposed to meet the enemy force with parade and then officially sign the act of ceding the rule? That’s not how it ever worked…
It’s not that serious. Current Russia wants nothing to do with the baltics, yet online Baltic communities always insert themselves and victimize themselves.
It's very serious as it legitimizes Soviet rule in our countries.
This sounds like rampant Kremlin propaganda.
I mean, the Soviet Union was the internationally recognized government of the Baltic states during that time. Whether or not this was morally or ethically correct, or even illegal, has no bearing on the facts
A lot of nations did not recognize the annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR.
De facto recognition was extended by all but 2 countries, the US and Ireland. And among those America was the only to maintain relations with representatives of the Baltic states
I don't think you intellectually comprehend what de jure recognition is. None of these states later recognized our independence - they had no need to.
There is a difference between de facto and de jure.
You are wrong and only spreading blatant Kremlin propaganda. Why are you legitimizing the illegal Soviet occupation of our countries???
There are two countries that didn't recognize the annexation either de jure or de facto. More countries don't recognize Israel, yet Israeli people are labeled as Israeli on Wikipedia
I don't think you intellectually comprehend what de jure recognition is. None of these states later recognized our independence - they had no need to.
Most western countries did not recognise USSR’s occupation of the Baltic States.
You’re being hysterical. Was your country a part of USSR or not?
It was not. Claiming the opposite is just blatant Kremlin propaganda.
So maps of the USSR published by the USA that time were Kremlin propaganda too, right?
Some of them did take the official US position into account, but obviously your average mapmaker wasn't even aware of such issues.
Not sure what you are trying here - the US officially had a very clear non-recognition policy.
Yeah I’m sure the average CIA cartographer was totally unaware of the US position on the Baltic states /s
No random map has any relevance on the official positions or legal interpretations. Wtf do you think you are trying to achieve here?
Geez cry much? It's just some text on a website
But hey, I hope you can heal from this irreparable damage this matter has caused you
Edgy.
Lol, blatant Kremlin propaganda legitimizing their crimes is not "just some text on a website"...
Какие же вы долбо_бы
Why are you talking in the language of a genocidal nation?
If you call baltics occupied their entire time being illegally annexed into the USSR, do also call Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, other central Asian countries illegal occupations too. Do also call Roman conquests of brittania Gaul and really anything illegal occupations and any war that has ever happened.
What do you call an occupation, and what do you call an annexation?
Again the white-blue-white represents Russian colonialism only without red.
All listed are irrelevant as examples.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were independent states in 1940. Members of League of Nations and other international organisations who had several treaties in force between them and Soviet Union at the time.
With the violent takeover in 1940 Soviet Union violated both conventional and customary international law. Soviet Union never had any legitimate claims over Baltic states. These states remained and existed throughout the whole occupation by their diplomatic representations existing and working as recognized diplomatic mission in the west, by governments in exile, by their memberships of international organisations, etc.
These states renounced soviet occupation gradually, first by declarations of sovergnity by the parliaments on 1988 then by declaring Soviet power void and their states being under occupation. Then restoring their independence.
None of this applies to the things you listed. This is just show of ignorance. Especially bad faith is the Roman example of before any international law existed at all.
occupation and annexation are just legal terms.
Military occupation - temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory. Since World War II and the establishment of the United Nations, it has been common practice in international law for occupied territory to continue to be widely recognized as occupied in cases where the occupant attempts to alter the expected temporary duration of the territory's established power structure, namely by making it permanent through annexation (formal or otherwise) and refusing to recognize itself as an occupant.
Annexation - the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory. In current international law, it is generally held to be an illegal act.
No. These were not states that had been recognized neither by the international community, nor by Russia/USSR. Neither do they claim legal continuity with any preceding states. These are the key differences with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
That's dumb, there was no modern international law back then.
I follow international law. You genocidal shithole of a country (a true nation of thieves) certainly does not.
Long live Stalin, there never was a freer period for the Baltics then when the Proletarian Revolution protected the region