Talk:Lithuania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

archive1 archive2

Lithuania was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: December 14, 2007

	Lithuania is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Comments	Needs better referencing & culture section. Renata 17:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

	This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Lithuania, or visit the project page for more details.
{{{{{1}}}-Class}}	This article has been rated as {{{1}}}-Class on its quality.

You might be interested in visiting Lithuania Portal. There you can find some interesting information, tasks you could do, and a place to ask general (or not) questions, make comments, and ask for help with Lithuania-related topics. Dont forget to sign the guest book!

[edit] Independence

Independence from the Soviet Union

-  Declared        March 11, 1990 
-       Recognized      6 September 1991 

why doesn't it mention 1918 ?

My grandmother was in Lithuania during the German invasion. Her father was shot and killed in front of her. Her mother, and twin sister were takin to camps. Her sister died in the camp and she was later freed along with her mother. Her mother was insane from all the touture trough medical experiments preformed on her. And later died. These are the bits and pieces I have gotten over the yrs. She will not talk to me about it she says its just to painfull. I wish she would open up to me about it ... I just have this deep need to know what happend to her and that part of my family. Its part of my history. In a way its hard to understand were I came from. I don't even know if she is Jewish or just a Lithuanian caught in the middle of everything at that time. --Jenlynn1977 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

In the third division only a very small part of Lithuania till the Memel came under Prussian controll and for only few years

Not mentioned is the frensh occupation of Klaipeda Memelland a mixed populated area. The frensh onesidet handet over this part to Lithuania 1923, the Lithuanians gave the area a sort of semicultural autonomy

Johann

[edit] GA Nominee

I haven't looked at this article in detail, but right off the bat I would say that this article doesn't have enough in-line references. There are several references at the end, but some more inline ones would be great.--Esprit15d 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ok we will try to do something ASAP M.K. 12:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

These are indeed improvesments. However, the sections that give me the most pause are the ones with statistics. Have you heard the expression "62.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot?" So they need to be substantiated so (1) they are credible and (2) they can be put in a chronological frame of reference, since even accurate statistics change often. It is cumbersome to put a citation after each one, but it would be sufficiant to just say somewhere in the paragraph (like near the beginning) "According to the 1998 World Almanac..." or "Statistics published from The World Health Organization 2004 report say..." Either that, or put one or two inline references at the end of paragraph to indicate that this whole paragraph is based on this source. The "Economy" section is done well, while the "Demographics" and "Geography" sections are of concern.--Esprit15d 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ok we will try to solve these issues M.K. 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

I've promoted the article, since there is now sufficient citation. I would recommend that every fact have an inline citation to confirm it, would encourage continued addition of such referencing. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

Does anyone have a reference for the motto Vienybė težydi? I found that it is the last line of the national anthem, but nothing else. Pruneau^talk 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not very popular or widely known. The grat coat of arms of the president of Lithuania have this motto written down. See Image:Coat of arms Lithuania Grand.png. However, this COA is not yet confirmed as official. Renata 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Small correction, if mine memory not fails me, this coat of arms belongs to Seimas, while president has quite similar, only without crown and motto CoA. M.K. 09:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South African Jews

Perhaps Lithuanian Jews have made a significant contribution toward South African Jewry, as well as American, British and Canadian Jewry. But the lack of sources and the wording of the sentence suggesting that many Jews left Lithuania in pursuit of South African gold and diamonds is erroneous. Jews were as likely to leave Eastern Europe in pursuit of bread and freedom as for "gold and diamonds." LarG (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Occupation"

The entering of Soviet forces cannot be described as "occupation", there has not been war between the USSR and Lithuania. See Military occupation for further explanation of the problem. 212.116.151.110 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhuh, entering after ultimatum - it is. Acceptance of ultimatum is considered as a military defeat. And this is the case: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." --Lokyz 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lokyz. The "occupation" word would be controversial if there existed an alternative point of view, e.g if the Soviets maintained they "liberated" Lithuania, but since nobody claimed this, the word can stay. Also I'd suggest to try to keep the history section of the article rather brief, and expand the History of Lithuania with all the exciting details instead. --Lysy^talk 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite some source of international law, affirming that the acceptance of an ultimatum is equal to military defeat? It is incorrect that USSR enters and annexes Lithuania in accordance with Ribentrop-Molotov. In the treaty Lithuania is determined to be in the Soviet sphera, but there's nothing about it being annexed. The annexation is the direct cause of the alliance pact and the ultimatum.

Molotov-Ribbentrop specifically included language saying that if something should happen in this area, then Stalin gets X and Hitler gets Y. Considering Hitler's sphere of influence could only extend itself through occupation, it does not take rocket science to discern Stalin's means for extending his sphere of influence. (And recall Stalin pre-emptively invaded Poland up to the line of demarkation as set by the amended protocol of the pact in order to insure Hitler stayed on his side of the line.) Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact official Soviet propaganda claims exactly that the USSR liberated the Lithuanian people from the White dictatorship. It's no matter of political controversy here, it's a matter of legal accuracy.

Also, you removed some facts, like the one with the USSR granting the district of Wilno to Lithuania without any explanation. Could you please provide some arguments for it? 212.116.151.110 13:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

District of Vilnius was granted according to 1920 peace treaty.

Ultimatum stated - nevertheles whether Lithuanian government would accept or would not accept ultimatum, USSR army will march into Lithuanian teritory. And there's evidence, that some Soviet units did not get information about that ulitmatum was accepted. They shot few people in uniform (Lithuanian border policemen) - this is what exactly can be called a war.

Don't you think, that this supposedly "liberating" act only proves, that Soviet army did gain control over territory? Was it Soviet territory to be "liberated" or "eternal Russian lands" that briefly escaped and formed Lithuanian national state? And what do you call whites? There was no White army in Lithuania, only national Lithuanian Armed Forces (btw, considerably smaller than occupying forces). So please tell me, what is this liberation in your oppinion?

Situation seems to be exact like in one of occupation definitions :"42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

As for legal considerations - I'm not a laywer, so cannot provide a law to prove this.

And all the "elections" were forged because: 1. there was only one party "to be elected", 2. All people who went to "vote" had their passports stamped 3. Soviet army was everywhere 4. "Government", that did organize elections was controlled by soviet agents Vladimir Dekanozov and Antanas Sniečkus.

You seem to read Soviet books, find some never literature. Good luck.--Lokyz 14:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not the right place to promote Nazi or Soviet propaganda concepts. --Lysy^talk 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be deeply affected by the political background of the period, I suppose you are Lithuanian. I never argued that elections were not forged or that the post-15 July government was not a puppet one. The only thing I oppose is the term "occupation". Shooting several policemen on the border is not a war in legal terms, it is called "a military incident". A "war" means full-scale armed confrontation. And an "occupation" occurs after a war has been fought.

I did not promote any propaganda concepts. I just cited what Soviet propaganda said about the annexation of Lithuania and the other Baltic states. 212.116.151.110 07:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider registering, because discussions with anon users are not very popular in Wikipedia.--Lokyz 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here I am. Now do you have something to the point or should we change the article? DamianOFF 10:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Change what? If you're insisting to push an opinion, that Lithuania was not occupied please tell me what term would you use for a fact that foreign army enters a state, remove it's constitutional government and this army imprisons several high ranking state officers (like internal affairs Minsiter, head of State Security Deparatament)? --Lokyz 11:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There could be put all the consequent facts - the German-Soviet pact, the alliance pact, the accusation from Moscow for breaching the latter, the entering of the Red Army, the staging of forged elections and the final annexation by the USSR. I would not deny that I am pushing an opinion - the one of the creators of international law. According to which, an "occupation" is preceded by a "war". DamianOFF 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Molotov-Ribbentrov pact was secret and had no legal ground in the first place. In fact this pact alone could be considered as an act of a joint occupation, or at least a preparation for occupation. Notice there was no Lithuanian (or other legal) party in Molotov-Ribbentrov pact, and the agreement was a forced military invasion. Granted that the fact of occupation is blurred in time and place, but it does not change the intentions and actions of the participating parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.195.72 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "occupation" is widely accepted. It used in internatinal politics, in foreign relations, in newspapers, scientific journals, academic research, textbooks, history books, movies, shows. You are in no position to change that. Renata 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Popular" and "correct" have different meaning. DamianOFF 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And who are you (or me, or Lokyz) to determine what's correct? I think, it's way out of our abilities and capabilities. Therefore we need to go with the widely accepted term. Renata 13:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many popular terms and facts that are not scientifically correct. For example, Bulgarian national revolutionary Vasil Levski was hanged on 2 February(new style 18th), but today's Bulgaria mourns him on the 19th. Every year. DamianOFF 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Damian, occupation is not a scientific fact. It's a matter of judgement and interpretations. Since you (or me) are in no position to judge and interpret, we gotta go with what the world thinks and says. And it (except for Russia and other Soviet countries) thinks it was occupation. Renata 12:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

DamianOFF, no, I am not Lithuanian and I believe you are not Russian. Does it matter ? Are you trying to say that when armed forces occupy another country without declaring a war first, then it is not a real occupation ? What is it then ? A friendly help ? I suggest you go to Museum of Occupation in Riga to confront your theories with reality. --Lysy^talk 17:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not Russian and I think I am not biased, concerning this article. Once again, I'll try to point out the general difference between political and scientific definition. If a foreign military force enters a country, and the people of this country hates it, you can call it an "occupation" on commemorative meetings, you can build up monuments of people who died "fighting against the foreign occupation", you can name museums in this country "museums of occupation", but you cannot call it an "occupation" in a scientific text, unless a war has been fought against the foreign force.

A war does not have to be fought for a country to be "scientifically" and legally occupied. This has nothing to do with "hating" the Soviet Union. It is sufficient that there indeed be an occupation army and that the sovereign government of that territory can no longer function. There does not need to be a declaration of war, a military occupation commission, etc. etc. etc. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you still wouldn't be convinced by what I say, I suggest we put an inquiry on the Wikipedia:Village pump concerning the usage of the term "occupation".DamianOFF 07:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing erroneous sources endlessly (or repeating erroneous statements endlessly) does not make them any more true, unfortunately, though some would try to make "fact" versus "fiction" a popularity contest. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't argue with Wikipedia, argue with:

• Britannica: On June 15, 1940, the U.S.S.R. confronted Lithuania with an ultimatum demanding the immediate formation of a "friendly" government and the admission of unlimited numbers of Soviet troops to its territory. The same day, the country was occupied.
• Encarta: In the summer of 1944 the Soviets reoccupied most of Lithuania... [1]
• Dick Chaney: The United States never recognized the legitimacy of that occupation,... [2]
• George Bush: But I recognize that in the West, the end of the second world war meant peace, but in the Baltics, it brought occupation and communist oppression. [3]
• U.S. Congress: the Government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement of admission and condemnation of the illegal occupation and annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania . [4]
• New York Times: The referendum also demands that Lithuania be compensated for damages resulting from the Soviet occupation and annexation in 1940. [5]
• Can come up with more. Just gotta go. Renata 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Mr. Damian would be appeased by an entry in the references that reads something like "Disputation regarding the term "occupation" as applied to Lithuania". But then it must link to some reasonably reputable source - not blogs or other personal websites.

The circumstances of the Lithuanian occupation are virtually identical to that of the Latvian, where the application of "occupation" to the full term of the Soviet presence has been dealt with in the discussion page for the Occupation of Latvia article. (The same people have posted here indicating Lithuania was "not occupied.") There is no reason to "appease" anyone's "opinion" that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were "not occupied." Next we will be proposing to appease people who insist the moon is made of cheese. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we are truly "feeding trolls" here. White dictatorship, is this serious enough of an edit, to even bother responding to, at this point? Dr. Dan 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is very serious. If Russia finally accepts the fact of occupation, then next, Russia will have to pay compensations for all repressions during the occupation, which is something Russia is trying to avoid by all means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.195.72 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing the officials of the military agressor and occupant state (Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc?) is indeed a very valuable argument. Murmillo 10:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now this sounds like a Russian TV populism. You don't need to continue, we've heard it all.

Referencing to US as a big daddy looks to me as a parasitic attitude. Most of people are able to make decision on the facts themselves and reference only to facts, not estimations of G. Bush or some other John Doe.

Just let me ask you, whether citing military agressor and occupant as a valuable source (1920 Armenia, 1921 Georgia, 1922 Azerbaijan, 1939 Poland, 1940 Moldova (Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to be exact), 1940 Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, 1956 Hungary, 1968 Czechoslovakia, 1979 Afghanistan) is valuable argument? If it's not enough, we might continue with Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and so on:)--Lokyz 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer is evident - No. Only facts that can be proved make sense. Murmillo 11:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Welt, this is the only one source, that doubts whether there was occupation:)--Lokyz 12:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have not seen any new arguments I once again ask everybody to put this on the village pump and really see what the community has to say on the matter. DamianOFF 08:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I still say - let us link to something on the other side - it could even be a blog. The truth will prevail in the long run, and it doesn't need to fear challenges. Novickas 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if "truth" really has nothing to fear about being challenged, it should be put up as a thesis on the village pump. Or there's someone fearing what the Community has to say? DamianOFF 12:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a international legal organization, so it really does not matter what it has to say. If you have any problems with term "occupation" you might go to Hague Tribunal and ask for clarification of a pure and shiny reputation of Stalin and Hitler. Because for now there are more than enough evidences from politicians and declarations of high ranking officials of many states, that Baltic states were occupied, and somehow I do not find objections by "lawyers" form KGB high schools neither reasonable nor objective.--Lokyz 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Village pump request made. Novickas 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whether or not the Baltics were "occupied" is not a popularity contest

(I've been asked to pull all this together, so here goes...) Whether the Baltics were, or were not, officially legally indisputably "occupied" is not a matter of conjecture. I see some well-meaning and thoughtful individuals have been drawn into the we can agree to disagree/we won't settle it here camp ("It's a matter of judgement and interpretations. Since you (or me) are in no position to judge and interpret, we gotta go with what the world thinks and says."--Renata). Or, more directly, just put it to a vote ("I suggest we put an inquiry on the Wikipedia:Village pump concerning the usage of the term 'occupation'."--DamianOFF).

Neither of these approaches does justice to the historical facts, to the memory of those who had to flee their homeland--most of them never to see it free again, or especially to those ripped from their homes (while Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were still sovereign nations even by the account of the Soviet Union) and sent to the Soviet gulags, most of them to die there.

What follows is somewhat from the perspective of Latvia, since I'm most familiar with the details. However, the validity extends to all three Baltic republics, as all were forced into "mutual assistance pacts;" all were invaded under the same false pretenses as part of the same campaign, Lithuania being the first; and the governments of all three took specific steps to insure their continuity regardless of territorial events.

[edit] A nation cannot be occupied without a "war"

The earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that “a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” This has been quoted by both sides in the "occupation debate":

• "yes" = Soviet army invaded, took control of all communications, etc., Soviet administration was set up...;
• "no" = Soviet army entered in legal accordance with the terms of the mutual assistance pact, the Soviet army did not actually administer the Latvian (Lithuanian, Estonian) territory....

The Hague Convention "version" is the earliest legal definition of occupation. However, it was defined in the context of a time when war itself was still considered a legal means for settling arguments.

Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states: “The Convention [...] shall apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.” This definition and subsequent legal interpretation focus on de facto control of a territory: "...the occupying power must be in a position to substitute its own authority for that of the occupied authorities, which must have been rendered incapable of functioning publicly".

Additionally, it is a severe breach of the Geneva Convention to deport citizens from the occupied territory to the territory of the occupier. As well, it is a severe breach to import citizens of the occupier into occupied territory. So, the deportation of Baltic citizens to the Soviet Union (including while even the Soviet Union took pains to insist the Baltics were "sovereign") and the subsequent campaign of Russification are all gross violations of international law.

As the occupied authorities (Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian) lost control to Soviet authority, including the immediate take-over of all communications facilities upon invasion (government-run phone and telegraph, radio...), that is wholly sufficient legal basis to categorize the Soviet presence an "occupation." Moreover, whether or not the Soviet army invaded legally or illegally (next, below) under the terms of the "mutual assistance pacts," the end result is still an occupation.

[edit] But the Soviet troops were invited in! And the Latvian (Lithuanian, Estonian) parliament(s) voted to ask to join the Soviet Union!

Pravda (November 26, 1939), in an [article] describing the Finnish Prime Minister Aimo Cajanderas a "buffoon" for not agreeing to a pact of mutual assistance, characterizes the pacts as: "...Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have concluded with the Soviet government treaties which secure them independence, peace and quiet work." Four days later, on November 30, the Soviet Union invaded Finland, proving Stalin's threats were not made idly.

This source is printed by Russian communists (see Центрального Комитета и МК ВКП(б)) what do you expect to be printed there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.195.72 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Soviets were invited in"

The mutual assistance pacts are often cited as basis for the "legality" of the Soviet presence. The intent behind its presence was certainly not benign, as the Soviet Union had already printed up "name-your-Baltic-republic" S.S.R. maps in 1939. More to the point, General Ivan Serov, Deputy People's Commissar of Public Security of the Soviet Union, had already on October 11, 1939—less than a week after the signing of the mutual assistance pacts—issued and signed Order № 001223, "regarding the Procedure for carrying out the Deportation of Anti-Soviet Elements from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia." Stalin (in Moscow) told Latvian Prime Minister Vilhelms Munters that as far as he was concerned, he could "invade tomorrow." (As already noted, this was no idle threat, as the Soviet invasion of Finland soon proved.) Nevertheless, the initial stationing of Soviet troops on Baltic soil was legal. According to Article 5 (Latvian pact), "the carrying into effect of the present pact must in no way affect the sovereign rights of the contracting parties, in particular, their political structure, their economic and social system, and their military measures." For the time being, not an occupation. The pacts, however, do not automatically impart legality to all subsequent Soviet actions using the pacts as their basis.

[edit] "The Soviets (later) entered legally under the terms of the mutual assistance pact."

This, more than anything else, is a microcosm of Soviet "truth" in action, which is: stage events, execute events, and subsequently interpret events in a wholly consistent cause-and-effect manner so as to (a) present an illusion of veracity, and (b) present that "veracity" going forward as a valid representation of historical occurrences, thereby (c) defining the "Soviet position" to be (d) used in the promulgation of further "veracities" in the Soviet interest. This is the very definition of Stalinism in action. (Too much for discussion here, but Stalin was particularly insistent on this sort of consistency, that is, always making sure he had a "solid lie" to stand on.)

The Soviet position is that they were "forced" to invade under the terms of the mutual assistance pact(s) in order to preserve their security. Not their fault, therefore neither an invasion nor an occupation. The lack of armed resistance is further cited as an indication this was not an invasion. Non-resistance was merely good sense (recall what happened to Finland)—the Baltics were strictly neutral in the war, were desperate to avoid its devastation, and would have been crushed by a Soviet onslaught.

The excuses under which the Soviets were "compelled" to invade, here using the Soviet ultimatum of June 16, 1940 to Latvia, but applicable to all three states (from Švābe's Story of Latvia):

• Its continued Military Alliance with Estonia, signed on November 1st, 1923, a defensive alliance registered with the League of Nations—and to which the USSR had not previously objected;
• Estonia's and Latvia's extension of that alliance to Lithuania, thus implicating all three Baltic states in an anti-Soviet plot—this was a total fabrication;
• Holding "secret conferences" in December, 1939 and March, 1940, ostensibly for the triple alliance to plot against the USSR—these were, in fact, regularly scheduled conferences of the Baltic ministers, in accordance with the Treaty of Collaboration of the Baltic States, signed in 1934 and, again, registered with the League of Nations, hardly secret;
• The enhancement of military relations between the Baltic states in hiding from the Soviets—again, total fabrication, and recall that tens of thousands of Soviet troops were already station in all three Baltic states—hardly the circumstances to be plotting the overthrow of the Soviet Union; and finally,
• The creation of a military Baltic Entente, the Revue Baltique—again a total fabrication; though the Revue Baltique did exist, it was actually the tri-lingual press organization of the Societies of Friendship of the Baltic Peoples.

There was additional provocation (alleged kidnapping of border guards, et al.) to set the stage. In the case of Latvia, after the first ultimatum was delivered to Lithuania, but before an ultimatum was delivered to Latvia, the Soviet Union attacked three Latvian border posts in the east of Latvia, killing three border guards and two civilians, as well as taking 10 border guards and 27 civilians as hostages to the Soviet Union. An act of war.

It may be a "consistent" cause and effect for Soviet propaganda, but, in verifiable fact, Soviet entry into the Baltics was a completely unprovoked military invasion based totally on lies. That makes everything from this point forward an occupation, so-called "petitions" to "voluntarily" join the Soviet Union notwithstanding (next, below).

Most telling, after the invasion of the Baltics, during which time they were purportedly still "sovereign," Vyacheslav Molotov stated the following to the Lithuanian foreign minister, Vincas Kreve-Misckevicius, on June 30: “You must take a good look at reality and understand that in the future small nations will have to disappear. Your Lithuania along with the other Baltic nations, including Finland, will have to join the glorious family of the Soviet Union. Therefore you should begin now to initiate your people into the Soviet system, which in the future shall reign everywhere, throughout all Europe; put into practice earlier in some places, as in the Baltic nations, later in others.” Puppet governments were elected two weeks later in all three republics.

Finally, in the case of Latvia, in sending Andrei Vishinsky as an official representative to take control of power and form a new government in Latvia, the Soviet Union violated the terms of the mutual assistance pacts, which as noted above, explicitly stated the pact must have no effect on sovereignty.

[edit] "Latvia (Lithuania, Estonia) joined the Soviet Union voluntarily."

This is the most persistent and perhaps most pernicious of all the Soviet lies, and a position that Russia continues to repeatedly espouse, branding anything else an anti-"anti-fascist", i.e., Nazi, lie. One of the most blatant promulgations of this lie by Russia was the passage of the following resolution by the Russian Duma in November, 1999, as reported by Itar-Tass: "The State Duma considers it its duty to 'remind deputies of the Latvian Saima that Latvia's being a part of the Soviet Union was grounded by fact and by law from the international juridical point of view...'"

This is, in fact, a lie that is doubly false—if such a thing is possible.

First, the governments "elected" were fraudulent. Beyond only "approved" Soviet candidates being on the ballot, the election results were announced in Moscow hours before the polls closed, and Soviet documents verify that the results were completely fabricated. So, the "election" was a fraud and any actions subsequently taken by the "elected" government were equally fraudulent.

There are those who, nevertheless, insist that an election is an election and therefore the incorporation of Latvia (Lithuania, Estonia) into the USSR is still "technically legal." This is the second falsehood. For example, in the case of Latvia, any change to its borders/territorial sovereignty/etc. had to, according to the Latvian constitution, be ratified by a two-thirds majority plebiscite of all eligible voters. Paradoxically, Soviet (now Russian) insistence that the joining of the Baltics to the Soviet Union was undertaken at the initiative of the parliaments of the respective sovereign nations (thus making it "technically" legal) confirms that the joinings were completely illegal as, in the case of Latvia, the joining was a direct violation of the terms of the constitution.

The sovereign Baltic States did not, therefore, join the Soviet Union; furthermore, they continued to exist de jure (next, below).

[edit] "Latvia (Lithuania, Estonia) did not exist after WWII and therefore were not occupied."

This is also "doubly" false.

First is the falsehood which is the continuation of the "voluntary" joining to the Soviet Union: in doing so, the Baltic states stopped existing as sovereign nations. The corollary is that the current Baltic States are not "continuances" of the respective territorial and governmental entities which were sovereign prior to WWII (the official Russian position). As the joining was both fraudulent and illegal (based on both outright fraud and on constitutional violation), there is no basis to any legal termination of sovereignty.

Second, the Baltic governments all took individual action to insure continuity of the exercise of their sovereignty regardless of territorial situations. Power of state was vested in these individuals/organs by the respective sovereign governments and was exercised by them until transfer of power of state by them back to the re-established sovereign governments. Using Latvia as an example, power of state was vested in Kārlis Zariņš, head of the Latvian legation to Great Britain, with Alfreds Bīlmanis, his counterpart in the United States, as his substitute should he fail to be able to execute his duties. After the death of Kārlis Zariņš in 1963, Latvia's diplomatic and consular services were overseen by the chargés d'affaires in the United States until the reestablishment of independence.

Most importantly, the Baltic states are legally continuous to their initial independence, remaining in existence in exile during the Soviet presence. This is the official position of all three governments; all three governments can point to officially documented and de jure transfers of power which fully support their position in this regard. The Soviet Union and now Russia has only lies and propaganda to support the dissenting "viewpoint."

[edit] "Russia liberated a now ungrateful Latvia (Lithuania, Estonia) from Hitler."

The above sections conclude the review of the facts, which incontrovertibly establish that:

• The Baltics were illegally invaded by the Soviet Union (regardless of the initial legal stationing of Soviet troops on Baltic soil under the terms of "mutual assistance" pacts);
• The Baltics neither voluntarily nor legally joined the Soviet Union;
• The sovereign powers of state of the Baltic governments continued to exist and to be exercised in exile during the entire Soviet tenure in the Baltic territories, and the current Baltic states are to be considered legally continuous with their predecessors;
• The Soviet presence in the Baltic territories is to be legally considered an occupation for its entire tenure.

That said, there is one last topic to be briefly dealt with, as it is the final piece of the puzzle where the current official Russian position is concerned. For example, Pravda (October, 2004), in an article complaining that Latvia does not celebrate May 9th as the Soviet defeat of Nazism, notes: "One of the leaders of Latvian Veterans Association Alexander Komarovsky wrote in Chas Russian-language Latvian newspaper that 154,000 Soviet soldiers died when fighting for Latvia's liberation."

Let us be completely clear. During the first occupation alone, the Soviet Union deported over 150,000 Baltic citizens. The notion that Baltic citizens gleefully welcomed the Russian "liberation" after that experience is a pure manufacture of Soviet propaganda. (Sadly, even today's Latvian Russians have been reported in the Russian press as bemoaning, "Soviet soldiers were greeted with flowers and songs. If it weren't for the Soviets, then the Nazis would be here.") The Soviet monument to the liberators of Latvia (across the Daugava from the main part of Riga) stands taller than the Statue of Liberty—but a lie, no matter how imposing a monument is erected to it, is still a lie. (It's rather unfortunate that under the terms of the Soviet departure an agreement was put in place to respect the war memorials left on occupied territory.)

Stalin did not liberate the Baltics. The Freedom Monument in Riga, Latvia was not built to thank Stalin (its three stars alleged to be the three Baltic states), a fiction repeated by a British tourism brochure a decade after Baltic independence—such is the hold of a lie told repeatedly for so long that it takes on the mantle of truth. The lie that the Baltics were not occupied is another such lie, plain and simple. Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • The same non-sense as up here is repeated by certain Soviet nostalgic editors here: Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945. Advocatus diaboli 14:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources on German-Soviet pact

Could the one who included the sources about the Ribentrop-Molotov pact please cite the exact phrase that claims that there's a text in the secret ammendment to the pact, that directly envisages the entering of Soviet troops in Lithuania? DamianOFF 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? M.K.

Here is a useful site: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-30-46.htm, the March 30, 1946 proceedings of the Nuremburg trial. There is a reference to the occupation of Lithunia. A direct quote: "DR. HORN: Is it correct that on 15 June 1940, after the delivery of an ultimatum, the Russians occupied the whole of Lithuania, including the part which was still German, without notifying the Reich government? VON RIBBENTROP: There was no special agreement concerning this, but it is well known that these areas were actually occupied." Here is another reference, http://www.lituanus.org/1989/89_1_03.htm, which states that "Valentin Falin, then head of TASS, reiterated at a Moscow press conference that no original of the secret protocol has ever been found". Many other references are listed in this latter article. Novickas 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The original terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact put Estonia and Latvia in the Soviet sphere of influence and Lithuania in the German sphere (and certainly, Hitler's "call home" was to insure Germans not find themselves under Soviet occupation): "In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party."

The subsequent amendment to the pact (and remember, all of it was "secret") was a proposal by Stalin to Hitler to "solve the Baltic (Lithuania) problem" where Lithuania was added to what Stalin "got" in return for Hitler "getting" a part of Poland he didn't have under the original terms. Most of my reference books are in boxes, so I don't have that text handy. Soviet occupation of the Baltics was envisaged regardless, as the Soviet Union had already printed up maps of the Baltic republics with the suffix "S.S.R." indicated as early as August 1939—prior to the initial stationing of Soviet troops in the Baltic under the terms of the mutual assistance pacts. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requested by Lysy

Added the reference that was requested. Novickas 14:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) This source, The US State Dept, is not perfect - it uses the expression "other sources" - but it carries weight in the English-speaking world.

Thank you! I believe that's actually the place where the sentence came from. You know, in early days most stuff on countries was adopted from U.S. gov sources: CIA factbook, country studies, etc. Renata 16:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

(RfC request appears here)

Would the editors here summarize this debate? Durova 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanians (and others of Baltic heritage) and pretty much the entire rest of the planet say Lithuania (along with the other Baltic States) was "occupied" according to international Conventions, and that said occupation was illegal under international law. (Mainly) Russia and Russophiles maintain:

• it was not an occupation, and/or
• it was at least a legal occupation (according to the terms of the mutual assistance pacts), and/or
• there was no occupation because Lithuania ceased to exist as a sovereign entity, and/or
• the Soviet presence in Lithuania, while an occupation to begin with / during the war, ceased to be an occupation at some indeterminate point when Lithuania had been under Soviet rule for so long that "occupation" became irrelevent, and/or
• the establishment of Soviet sovereignty over Lithuanian territory in accordance with the petition by the Lithuanian parliament to join the Soviet Union made the incorporation of Lithuania into the Soviet Union legal according to international law, ergo no occupation.

A motion has been made to essentially "vote" on whether Wikipedians are to view the Soviet presence in Lithuania as an occupation for the entire term (this also means recognizing today's Lithuania as continuous with the first republic), or whether for whatever number of reasons, including:

• failure to present a persuasive argument, and/or
• lack of consensus in the international community (Russia et al. "it was not an occupation" viewpoint), and/or
• failure to persuade all Wikipedians of the "truth" of the "occupation,"

it is to be held that some people are merely of the opinion that Lithuania was occupied, i.e., it's the "so-called 'occupation' of Lithuania". --"Visiting" Latvia-related articles editor... Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That was about what I thought I'd see, although the editors here understand this in far more detail than I do. Wikipedia's mission is not to settle controversies but to describe them. I recommend putting the debate into the article under a neutral heading - perhaps "Soviet era" - and welcoming each side to present references for the matter. Per Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, editors don't have to agree on an issue to collaborate toward a good article. Best wishes, Durova 20:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To the Lithuanians there is less than zero controversy. Accordingly, I would like to see it called an occupation with a notation that Russia dissents. We don't put the belief that the earth is flat on the same footing as the belief that the earth is round simply because there are some people who (perhaps even stridently) insist the earth is flat. --Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does have a Flat Earth entry. It has a section describing modern-day believers, and a link to their websites. A Soviet Empire page would keep these authors occupied (pun intended). In this case there are quite a lot of believers - see [6]. 40% of the population felt that Stalin was a great leader; that's millions of people. Of course the rest of the world recoils in horror, but it's important to know your adversary's point of view. A lot of us would be interested in their justifications. Novickas 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There you go! A new article dedicated to presenting the Soviet "view", notes that a significant number of people still believe it (e.g., Stalin liberated the Baltics), and explore the reasons why. Additionally, enumerate instances of Soviet/Russian policy at odds with the Baltics (or other nations) and explore the validity of the basis of the Soviet/Russian position/policy. I haven't seen one good argument from the "it wasn't an occupation" camp yet. Really, we don't need to argue over the Hague Convention from the 19th century. What it really boils down to is this:

• the official Russian position and policy, as stated by its ministers, its president, and its parliament, is that the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally under international law and therefore were not "occupied."

Well, let's see the evidence, then. Not just, "Russia says so, that's good enough for me,... The Duma says so, it ought to be good enough for you,... Putin said it, that's proof enough,... Russia doesn't have to prove anything,... и так далее, и так далее, и так далее, и так далее,..." --Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. A real article would be a lot more informative and a lot more interesting than just-a-bunch-of-folks simply insisting there was no occupation. I'll eventually get to the Stalin is buried but not dead topic to some degree in the History of Russians in Latvia but not any time soon. --Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for our point–counter-point to materialize... —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You see it is quite clear situation, only one editor had some different thoughts. M.K. 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we can wait a few more days and if no one presents a properly substantiated case, then we're settled on calling the Soviet presence throughout its tenure in the Baltics an "occupation." I have no issue with also noting that "Russia continues to vehemently deny..." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What happens when the clock runs out? Do you know of any other issues in Wikipedia that have been in this situation? Novickas 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(N.B. re-indented the above two) As I understand it, all parties have to come to agreement for it to be stricken from RfC. I haven't been through a RfC before, perhaps someone with experience in this can comment. We might be stuck here for a while even though DamianOFF appears to have abandoned his position. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is time to close this. Position is clear. M.K. 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume there's something more formal than merely deleting the request on the RfC page. Guidance, anyone, based on past experience/knowledge of the RfC process? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

An interesting note - at this site [7] (warning: this document mentions the use of nuclear weapons against Lithuania) the author states, in re reparations payments to Lithuania: "Any negotiations on this matter would require Moscow to recognize the fact of occupation, which is absolutely out of question for a number of reasons." He does not go on to discuss the reasons. The article's author, Arkady Moshes, has written over 90 academic papers according to his curriculum vitae at [8]. Among the venues that have published his work are Harvard University Press, and he is listed as being Senior Researcher, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Head, Russia and EU Programme. Novickas 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art

Am planning to add a section on Lithuanian art. Comments, additions, even flaming welcome. Many of us probably have photos of public sculpture in Lietuva, that could be uploaded. Novickas 15:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't run across traditional (weaving, ceramics, carving, jewelry... more modern like folk symbols interpreted in stained glass) for either Latvia or Lithuania. Might be out there somewhere... maybe not. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of Lithuanian weaving and ceramics out there; our family owns quite a few examples. Also the Balzekas Museum in Chicago has an extensive selection, but will have to find out if they'll let me take pictures or donate their images to Wikimedia.

This project will clearly go slowly, since images are so jealously guarded. Also I can see now that issues will arise with regard to the ethnic provenance -Polish vs Lithuanian - of some major artists and architects.

Maybe it would be better to have a page on Baltic Arts (I looked for it, didn't find it, but if you know of one pls let me know) since we seem to do well at collaborating under the Baltic rubric. What do you think? Novickas 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

The Religion section says Lithuania was the only majority Catholic soviet republic. Isn't Poland majority Catholic too? - Schrandit 15:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Poland was not formally a "Soviet Socialist Republic" - see Soviet Union. Not to disparage the effects of the Soviet Union on Poland. Novickas 16:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this one :-)) --Lysy^talk 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Me Too! Dr. Dan 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Lithuania's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Lithuania deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state, and is now spamming this message on every talk page. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide rates

Here is a list of the top ten, sorted by rate. Note that all except Sri Lanka were either Soviet SSRs or under Soviet domination. Kazakhstan is not an Eastern European country. Slovenia and Hungary are central European.

• LITHUANIA 91.70
• RUSSIAN FEDERATION 82.50
• BELARUS 73.10
• LATVIA 68.50
• UKRAINE 62.10
• SRI LANKA 61.40
• SLOVENIA 60.70
• HUNGARY 60.10
• ESTONIA 57.70
• KAZAKHSTAN 55.00

Source: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Novickas 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In light of these statistics, and of the fact that the user is anonymously logged in to an account that has had many problems, I'm going to revert. Novickas 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

Lithuania entered into the annals of European history when it was first mentioned in a medieval German manuscript, the Quedlinburg Chronicle, on February 14, 1009. The Lithuanian lands were united by Mindaugas in 1236, and neighboring countries referred to it as "the state of Lithuania". The official coronation of Mindaugas as King of Lithuania, on July 6, 1253, marked its recognition by Christendom, and the official recognition of Lithuanian statehood as the Kingdom of Lithuania.[2]

This history part is totally misleading and incorrect. Compare it to this: http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lietuva while not everyting there is close to total true it is at least less misleading.

Dialect of English

This article appears to vary between different dialects of English. This is a problem per WP:MOS. Assuming my spell-checker and I are correct, I would have to change four words to make this British English, five words to make it American English, and three words to make it Canadian and Austrialian English. I do not know which is would be preferred. However, Lithuania and Great Britain are both European. If no one responds, I am going to make it British English. Three in the morning 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics: long drafting?

Drafting the constitution was a long and complicated process

Was it long? In 1990 the previous temporary constitution was enacted. Years 1990 - 1991 were so intensive, that the parlament has no time to draft a new constitution, even if they might think about it in general. Nor a public discussion on new constitution took place then. So we have 09/1991 - 09/1992. At this time discussion had started not in the Supreme Council only, but in wider society. But the public discusion didn't increase much, because the drafting of constitution had already been finished. So it was a year long discussion in the parlament and a few months long public discussion. Was it long as for constitution? Linas Lituanus 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption

In the image in Culture, what is the caption supposed to mean? It describes Image:Vilnius Uzupio Respublica.jpg as "A sculpture of angel — a symbol of tongue-in-cheek Republic at Užupis, Vilnius." Could this be rephrased to be much clearer? Why would an angel be "tongue-in-cheek"? Alekjds ^talk 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was coming to ask the exact same thing! --Grey Knight ⊖ 16:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Renata3 clarified things for me, and I have attempted to make the caption more clear. --Grey Knight ⊖ 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone vandalized this article

After reading an article in the New York Times I came to this one. The last line in the general discussion states: "Lithuania is between Scotland and Mongolia and was founded by Weird Al Jankovic" or something like that.

I doubt that was the author's intention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ox41234 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pagan Romuva Religion

In the religions section, shouldnt Romuva be mentioned as it is still practiced by some indeginous Lithuanians. The religion is pretty unique to the area and really should be mentioned.

216.66.105.128 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of term Aryan

Not sure a complete revert of Scotia1297's change is completely the right solution. May be worth addressing in Lithuanian people, per the New Human Interest Library encyclopedia. Just a thought. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lithuanian crime wave into Scandinavia should be mentioned, as it is quite comprehensive. I hope wikipedia is not going to be a site for tourist interest and political correctness. Our country is full of Lithuanians already. This is heavily documented.

The world will know sooner or later, and then the Pro-Lithuanian censors can sit there with their Soviet tendencies and feel clever, as we throw these criminals home.

[edit] Collusion

I notice this page stays well away from any kind of accusation of collusion with the Nazis. Only Germans can be so evil, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.51.91 (talk) 23:33, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

You think communists were smoother? No way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.100.66.70 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location map

new style map featuring Germany

Maybe it is worth to change current location map to the new style one, like Germany? M.K. 20:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most recent independence

I realise that former Eastern Bloc countries tend to have competing versions of history, so I'll try to be careful. I mean no offence.

The article's information bar describes the years between the the end of the Second World War and the collapse of the Soviet Union as "Soviet occupation." I'm not disputing the legality (or illegality) of the USSR's invasion and annexation of Lithuania, but the fact is that it happened. Lithuania was thus henceforth part of the Soviet Union and cannot be considered to have been under occupation. Again, I'm not saying that the annexation was right, just that it happened and that the article should reflect that.

If there's something I'm missing I'd appreciate clarification.

Thank you, Soviet Canuckistan (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Forcible annexation and integration into Soviet civil structures does not mean that occupation ends. Occupation is defined as the sovereign rightful authority prevented from exercising its authority by another authority--a situation which continued from the first Soviet invasion and occupation, interrupted by the Nazi invasion and occupation, to Lithuania's redeclaration of independence. Russia insists post-Soviet Lithuania is not pre-WWII Lithuania (supporting no occupation). However, enough bilateral international obligations have been restarted right where they left off in 1939 that the overwhelming international position is that today's Lithuania is indeed the one declared independent in 1918, confirming 50 years of occupation. Lithuania's own position is that it is continuous with the state declared independent in 1918.

   So the article is indeed correct. Hope this helps. This topic has been covered in painful detail in some of the talk archives of all three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, indeed, the Baltic state/western version of history is quite different from the Soviet "version" of history, that's the correct term to use (they are not competing interpretations of identical facts). —PētersV (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In the article it is mentioned that independence in 1918 was regained from the Russian empire which is false. Independence was regained from Germany that occupied Lithuania in 1915. Please correct this one. Mantas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.108.2 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Lithuania from the GA list

I personally removed this article from the GA list. If anyone object this, please write down your reasons or opinions so that I can put these to assessment (i.e. GAR) ASAP for review in order to reach a new consensus. Coloane (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you follow Good article reassessment/guidelines? What were the reasons you removed this article from the GA list? Doopdoop (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As the remover (Coloane), don't you have some editorial obligation to share with editors what the deficiencies are that require being addressed which prompted your action? We're not psychic, here, list please so we can strike through as they are addressed by the editorial community. Otherwise you've just effectively tagged the article as "insufficient" with no further information. —PētersV (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

please kindly refer to: Good Article's talk page. I think you will find out the reason why I removed the article from the list. Someone explained over there already, I guess. If you have any question and would like to put this article back on the GA list, please take this article to the GA reassessment and get a new consensus. Coloane (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WWII victims

Don't have the bandwidth right now, but there needs to be a bit of cleanup, especially with the latest edit which duplicated the Holocaust victims totals again which already appear several lines before. —PētersV (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Should probably note Lithuania's inter-war Jewish population was around 150,000--Hitler's and Stalin's deal incorporating Vilnius in October 1939 added another 100,000 just in time for Hitler to exterminate them. −PētersV (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or do you want to say that incorporation of Vilna somehow moved 100,000 Jews from safety to extermination? And, if you insist on splitting hairs, locals played unusually prominent part in extermination of Lithuanian Jews. And it seems from accounts that Lithuanians were busier bees than Vilna Poles, although this can be somehow explained by Nazi's distrust to Slavs in general, Balts were viewed as somewhat more loyal. Proved to be more loyal too (if you compare number of Polish Waffen SS and rear guard units to Baltic ones). And, to prevent usual "Balts had previous experience" mantra, Eastern Poles did too. But they fought both Nazis and Reds... RJ CG (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At least for Latvia it's been documented that Nazi reports extolling the natives' lust for killing Jews was in fact false--it was the Nazi command attempting to portray how well the locals were accepting Nazi rule. What I infer as a statement regarding general Baltic "loyalty" to Nazism is not supported by the best scholarship on the subject. But a subject for another place and time.

   What I was attempting to say was that it would be appropriate to note that with regard to Lithuania's independence between WWI and WWII, the 100,000 victims in the annexed territory including Vilnius would be more accurately described as victims in Polish territory (with a similar footnote regarding Poland). They were not within Lithuania's internationally recognized border and should not be statistically counted as part of Lithuania's pre-WWII Jewish population, which is what the figures in the current article imply. They were part of pre-WWII Poland's population. Minimally, where the article states numbers and percentages relative to Lithuanian population, assuming those numbers stay, it needs to specifically indicated that they include the Vilnius territory which the Soviets had seized from pre-WWII Poland, which was not part of WWI-WWII Lithuania.

   Nor am I here to argue over whether Vilnius/Vilna/Wilno is Polish or Lithuanian. I'm simply stating that for accuracy, one must differentiate between pre-WWII Lithuania proper and Lithuania as reshaped by post-Soviet invasion action. —PētersV (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Piece we discuss is based solely on US State Department's article, so please argue with it's editors, if you feel that Jews of Vilnius should be considered "Polish", rather than "Lithuanian". On the side note, this tongue slip confirms that West indeed considered Soviet annexation of Baltics "kosher" for all intents and purposes when they were not obsessed with "showing it" to the Cold War adversary. And if you feel offended so deeply about "Vilno" instead of "Vilnius", please accept my apologies. I just barbaric-latinized name most widely used in Russophone books dealing with Jewish history and Holocaust in this part of Europe ("Вильна" or "Вильно"). RJ CG (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minorities

their organizations - is it about Roma or about all minorities?Xx236 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Europe

Use Eastern Europe or rewrite it.Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)