Military Review

The mythical "aggression" in the Baltic states and Moldova, which was not

45
The mythical "aggression" in the Baltic states and Moldova, which was not

In the Western media, the thesis about the Soviet Union’s aggression against the Baltic states and Moldova and their subsequent occupation continues to “walk”. However, historically reliable facts and documents refute such a mythical assessment of the 1940 events of the year and indicate that there was no aggression and occupation, and the Baltic states entered the USSR in strict accordance with international law, based on decisions of the highest legislative bodies of these countries that received elections the widest support of voters.


It is not easy to write about the events in the Baltic States and Moldova in 1940, as their assessments are ambiguous. There is much to compare, weigh, much to look through the prism of the past years, both before and after 1940. It seems that a comprehensive impartial analysis of the processes of those difficult years is possible only with maximum support on historical facts and documents.

Based on the foregoing, it should be noted that the events of the year 1940 in the Baltic States were preceded by a difficult situation in Europe in the year 1939. Encouraged by indecision and the two-faced policy of the Western powers, Hitler’s Germany seized Czechoslovakia, Austria, and prepared for new seizures of foreign territories. Hitler had already shouted "about living space" in the east, and he could only be stopped by concerted and energetic joint actions.

In this situation, the Soviet government, as you know, suggested that Britain and France conclude a tripartite pact to prevent the new aggressive aspirations of fascist Germany. But the negotiations were failed due to the fault of the Western powers, whose leaders were quite satisfied with the focus of the policy of Nazi Germany to the east. As Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Zhukov notes in his memoirs, "it was obvious that the whole complexity, inconsistency and tragedy of the situation was caused by the desire of the ruling circles of England and France to push their heads together Germany and the USSR."

In the middle of 1939, a critical moment came - the Nazis began to openly threaten Poland. It became obvious that the danger of war in Europe was growing, that fascist Germany was our most likely adversary, that for the security of the USSR an immediate turnaround in our foreign policy was needed. As a result, August 23 1939 in Moscow between Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact, the so-called "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact."

After the Nazi invasion of Poland, the Soviet government took new measures to strengthen our western borders, because, according to contemporaries, I.V. Stalin did not particularly believe in the strength of the agreement with Germany and generally did not trust Hitler much. On September 17, the Soviet Union sent troops into Poland and took the original Russian territories - the western part of Belarus - under the protection of the USSR. In September 1939, negotiations began between the USSR and the then governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on the possibility of deploying our troops on their territory and fleet. The negotiations were successful.

September 28 between Estonia and the USSR signed the Mutual Assistance Pact, which provides for the establishment of Soviet military bases on the territory of Estonia and the deployment of a Soviet military contingent of up to 25 thousand people. October 5 The 1939 Agreement was signed between the USSR and Latvia "On Mutual Assistance" for a period of 10 years, providing for the introduction into Latvia of the 25-ti thousandth contingent of Soviet troops. October 10 Mutual Assistance Agreement for 15 years was signed with Lithuania. The agreement provided for the introduction into Lithuania of a 20 of a thousandth contingent of Soviet troops. We note that all negotiations and the conclusion of treaties were carried out within the framework of international law, without any political pressure, which is being talked about in the West and in the ruling circles of the Baltic countries today.

In October-November 1939, the agreed number of Soviet troops was deployed in the Baltic republics. But it was not aggression or occupation, as it is interpreted today in the West and in the Baltic countries, since everything happened in accordance with the aforementioned treaties and was motivated both for the defense of the Baltic republics and for the security of the Soviet Union. As Winston Churchill noted then, "this was absolutely necessary for Russia's security against the Nazi threat."

It is noteworthy that the entry of Soviet troops in the Baltic warmly welcomed the local population. For example, 5 November 1939 of the year in the Riga newspaper "Gazeta v vseg" in the note "Soviet troops went to their bases" reported: "On the basis of a friendly agreement concluded between Latvia and the USSR on mutual assistance, the first echelons of Soviet troops proceeded on October 29 1939 of the year through the border station Zilupe. A guard of honor with a military orchestra was lined up to meet the Soviet troops. " A little later, in the same newspaper 26, November 1939, the article “Freedom and Independence” published the speech of President Karlis Ulmanis, in which he stated: “The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance with the Soviet Union strengthens the security of our and Soviet borders.”

However, further events showed that the governments of the Baltic republics were pursuing an anti-Soviet policy, did not observe the signed treaties with the USSR, and headed for collusion with Germany, waiting only for a convenient moment for a direct strike on the Soviet garrisons. What was left for our leadership to do? Expect this blow? The question, of course, is rhetorical. Given this circumstance, the Soviet government 14 on June 1940 of the year presented an ultimatum to Lithuania, and 16 of June to Latvia and Estonia demanding to form governments capable of ensuring the implementation of the agreements concluded, as well as to allow additional contingents of Soviet troops in the republics.

The conditions were accepted, and in all three republics were formed friendly to the Soviet Union, but we note - not communist - governments led by J. Paleckis (Lithuania), I. Vares (Estonia) and A. Kihenstein (Latvia). The 15-17 of June in the republic were also introduced additional Soviet troops.

New governments lifted bans on the activities of the communist parties and called early parliamentary elections. In the elections held on July 14 1940 of the year in all three countries, the blocs (unions) of the working people won. According to official data, the turnout in Estonia was 84,1%, while the Union of working people was given 92,8% of votes, in Lithuania the turnout was 95,51% of which 99,19% voted for the Union of working people, in Latvia the turnout was 94,5%, for Bloc labor people were given 97,8% votes.

The newly elected parliaments already on July 21-22 proclaimed the creation of the Estonian SSR, the Latvian SSR and the Lithuanian SSR and adopted the Declaration of entry into the USSR. 3-6 August 1940 of the year in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, these republics were accepted into the Soviet Union. Such is the chronicle of the entry of the Baltic republics into the Soviet Union. Everything happened in accordance with the constitutions in force in the republics. And where is the "aggression", where is the "occupation" followed by violent annexation?

Let's look at the classical definition of the concept of "occupation". In its fullest form, this definition sounds like "temporary stay of significant military formations on the territory of a foreign state in conditions of a state of war between this state and the state belonging to such formations, at which the effective exercise of power by the government of the state to which the occupied territory stops, and administrative power is exercised within the limits defined by international law, the highest command instances of military formations. " None of the parameters from this definition is suitable for the 1940 events of the year in the Baltics.

In the West, it is said that by introducing troops into the Baltic countries, the Soviet Union eliminated democratic regimes of power there. Frank lies, since dictatorial regimes led by Smeton (Lithuania), Patson (Estonia), Ulmanis (Latvia) have ruled here for a long time.

Indeed, as noted above, 14-16 of June 1939 of the USSR presented an ultimatum to the aforementioned dictators, demanding a change of government to more loyal to the Soviet Union. Such governments were formed. But, we should note that there was no Communists in them and all this was carried out in view of the requirements of the existing constitutions, which no one had canceled. The decrees on new governments and the appointment of elections were signed by the Prime Minister of Lithuania (President Smetona fled to the USA by that time), the presidents of Latvia and Estonia.

Thus, the change of executive power was carried out in compliance with all the procedures required by the laws of independent Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. And from a formal legal point of view, all acts that preceded the entry of these republics into the USSR were flawless.

The legitimacy of the accession of the Baltic republics to the USSR was given by the elections to the parliaments of these republics held on July 14 of the year 1940. The fact that only one list of candidates from the "Union of Working People" was registered in the elections (in Estonia - the "Block of Working People") was also completely in line with the legislation of these republics during their independence, which did not provide for alternative elections. That is, there is no reason to believe that the 1940 summer of the year meant for the Baltic states a change of democracy to totalitarianism. Rather the opposite.

By and large, it can be argued that in the summer of 1940, in the Baltics, the threat of the destruction of the statehood of the three Baltic republics was averted. What would happen to her if the Baltic came under the control of the German Reich was demonstrated in 1941-1945. In the plans of the Nazis, the Balts were subject to partial assimilation by the Germans, partial eviction to the lands cleared of Russians. But, at the same time, there was no question of any Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian statehood.

In the conditions of the Soviet Union, the Balts not only retained their identity, their languages ​​as official, but also developed and enriched their national culture, and significantly strengthened the socio-economic potential of the republics. For example, the USSR began to invest in the Baltic States even before the end of World War II, immediately after the Nazi troops were expelled from these territories. And already in 1947, the industry of the Baltic Union republics surpassed the pre-war level, while the rest of the Soviet Union, after the Nazi occupation, was still in ruins.

In the Soviet period, not only new plants and factories were built in the Baltic States, but also the best roads in the USSR, well-equipped seaports, hundreds of bridges, dozens of power plants, including the Ignalina nuclear power plant, and other energy facilities, many basic infrastructure facilities (schools and institutions, hospitals and theaters, etc.). In the first five post-war years alone, the number of resorts and sanatoriums on the Riga beach has increased by a factor of 16. In the 1970-1980-s, the Baltic republics were the leaders in the USSR in terms of investment in fixed capital per capita. In 1990, in terms of GDP per capita, Lithuania ranked 39-th in the world, Latvia-40-th, Estonia-46-th. In the USSR, the Baltic States became an organic part of the Union with the extension of all Soviet laws and regulations to it, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians became full-fledged Soviet citizens (unlike, say, the position of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia today).

An indisputable fact, as noted above, is that the supreme authorities of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which proclaimed the establishment of Soviet power and applied for membership in the USSR, were elected by popular vote. However, there is a lot of speculation about this. At the same time, it is obvious that it is now difficult to say to what extent the results of these elections reflected the mood of the population and to what extent the data on the results of the elections were flawless. This can only be assumed. There is a lot of talk about political pressure on voters, fraud and other violations in these elections. However, no one has yet found legally substantiated evidence of violations of the 1940 election procedure of the year. This is also a fact.

Even now, in countries with centuries of parliamentary experience, there are frauds in the vote count, other irregularities occur constantly. So it makes no sense today to talk about impeccable cleanliness in the organization of elections in the atmosphere of those years.

Some historians and researchers associated the policy of the Soviet Union on the "Sovietization" of the Baltic States and the accession of the Baltic states to the USSR with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. However, no one was able to find evidence of this fact in archival documents. Moreover, there are documents testifying to the prohibition by Moscow of plenipotentiaries in the Baltic not only to use the word Sovietization, but also to communicate with the left forces in general.

For example, the fact of a confidential conversation of I.V. Stalin with the General Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Comintern G. Dimitrov is known, to which I.Stalin said that "the Soviet Union must strictly observe them (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) internal regime and independence. We don’t we will seek their Sovietization. " (See "USSR and Lithuania during the Great Patriotic War, Vilnius, 2006, t.1, p. 305). In October 1939, V.Molotov telegraphed the plenipotentiary and military attache in Lithuania:" I strictly forbid to intervene in inter-party affairs in Lithuania , support any opposition movements, etc. "(See E.Yu. Zubkova," Baltic States and the Kremlin ", p. 60-61).

The Soviet troops in the Baltic states were given the strictest instructions regarding behavior in relation to the local population and authorities. This suggests that the factor of the military presence of the USSR was not decisive in the political processes in the Baltic States, and, therefore, the process of the Baltic republics joining the USSR was not annexation and military seizure.

On the international aspect of the problem. The entry of the Baltic republics into the USSR at one time was de jure recognized by Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, India, Iran, New Zealand, Finland, and de facto, the United Kingdom and several other countries. How to regard it now? They were also subjected to political or military pressure from the Soviet Union?

It is well known that a special opinion on this issue was and remains with the United States. Then they did not recognize the entry of the Baltic republics into the USSR. 16 September 2008, the US Senate adopted a resolution stating that the Russian Federation should recognize the illegality of the Soviet occupation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Not without US influence, the Council of Europe in 1960 and 2005 in its resolutions characterized the entry of the Baltic republics into the USSR as an occupation, violent annexation. The European Parliament in 1983 and 2005 condemned the actions of the Soviet Union in 1940 and characterized the entry of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the USSR as Soviet occupation.

With the support of the West, the leadership of the Baltic states and the nationalist forces of the Baltic countries today regard the events of 1940 as an act of occupation that lasted almost half a century. The modern Baltic republics consider themselves to be the successors of the states that existed in 1918-1940, and the Soviet Baltic republics as illegally occupied regimes.

The official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation on this issue: "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation regards the accession of the Baltic states to the USSR as complying with the norms of international law of that time." According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, for the legal assessment of the situation in the Baltic States in the late 30-s of the last century, the term "occupation" cannot be used, since there was no state of war between the USSR and the Baltic states, and there was no military action at all. troops carried out on a contractual basis and with the express consent of the then authorities that existed in these republics.

In addition, in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia during the entire period of their stay in the USSR, with the exception of the time Germany occupied this part of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War, national authorities acted. Add to this that in these years, as noted above, the economy and culture of the Union republics of the Baltic states were rapidly developing.

A significant fact is that at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, the participating States confirmed the integrity of the pre-war borders of the USSR, and, consequently, of all territorial acquisitions of the USSR in 1939-1940. In 1975, the participants in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, including the United States, by signing the Final Act of the Meeting, also recognized the inviolability of European borders.

As for the entry of the Moldavian SSR into the Soviet Union, everything was generally simpler here. In 1940, there was no state at all in the territory of the present Republic of Moldova. October 12 1924 was formed here as part of the Ukrainian SSR Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. It is clear that "autonomy" is not some kind of sovereign state formation. By the way, Grigory Kotovsky was the initiator of the creation of the Moldovan autonomy within the Ukrainian SSR. After the Soviet Union regained Bessarabia historically belonging to Russia, which was occupied by Romania in its time, administrative transformations were carried out in these territories in 1940, to which any sovereign state is entitled.

As a result, on August 2, 1940, at the VII session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Law "On the formation of the Moldavian SSR" was adopted. Thus, the Moldavian Union Republic appeared in the USSR, which included 6 from 9 counties of Bessarabia and 6 from 14 districts of the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in Ukraine. The current nationalist leadership of Moldova established 28 July, when Bessarabia was liberated from the Romanian occupation of Bessarabia, as the "Day of Soviet occupation".

In the meantime, the myth of the "Soviet aggression" in the Baltic States and Moldova is poisoning the relations of the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Moldovans with the Russians, does not contribute to the establishment of effective partnership between the states. The conflict on this basis is exacerbated by periodic demands, including at the state level, of the Baltic countries, the Republic of Moldova to the Russian Federation on the payment of compensation "for the occupation of the country."
Author:
Originator:
http://peacekeeper.ru/
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. omsbon
    omsbon 23 August 2013 09: 12
    +4
    In my opinion, the history of Courland and Zhmudiya all consists of "miffof", starting from the moment of their inception. They dangled between the legs of Russia, Poland and Germany.
    Now they have achieved a lot - they have become a "pad with wings" in NATO.
    1. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka 23 August 2013 10: 29
      -3
      Quote: omsbon
      In my opinion, the history of Courland and Zhmudiya all consists of "miffof", starting from the moment of their inception. They dangled between the legs of Russia, Poland and Germany.
      Now they have achieved a lot - they have become a "pad with wings" in NATO.

      This is their life, it is their choice. As for me, let them live as they see fit.
      And in those years they had no choice, they were simply confronted with the fact and whatever the author of the article would write.
      1. Apologet.Ru
        Apologet.Ru 23 August 2013 12: 04
        0
        hi
        In my opinion, the best answer on this topic was given by V.V. Putin -



        The title of the video is certainly not tactful, I agree.
        And so - do not remove, do not add ...
      2. Sakhalininsk
        Sakhalininsk 23 August 2013 14: 20
        +4
        Quote: Vovka Levka
        This is their life, it is their choice.


        Their entire historical life is nothing more than a farce, the chukhnah historically never possessed any sovereignty and histories, their history is the history of low-organized tribes in whose territory there was a struggle of interests of Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania, Poland, German knights' orders and Russia. And they had these Chukhons who wanted and when they wanted. Their statehood in 1918 was nothing more than a confluence of circumstances ... And now all this sprat-Chukhon limotrophy with its squeals about occupations and other horrors is nothing more than a clownery led by the State Department.
        1. Vovka levka
          Vovka levka 23 August 2013 21: 07
          0
          Quote: Sakhalininets
          Quote: Vovka Levka
          This is their life, it is their choice.


          Their entire historical life is nothing more than a farce, the chukhnah historically never possessed any sovereignty and histories, their history is the history of low-organized tribes in whose territory there was a struggle of interests of Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania, Poland, German knights' orders and Russia. And they had these Chukhons who wanted and when they wanted. Their statehood in 1918 was nothing more than a confluence of circumstances ... And now all this sprat-Chukhon limotrophy with its squeals about occupations and other horrors is nothing more than a clownery led by the State Department.

          All life is a theater, and we are only actors in it .....
      3. Apologet.Ru
        Apologet.Ru 23 August 2013 18: 22
        +3
        hi
        I wonder who deletes my comments? Already the second article however ...
        But I will try to recover -
        Best of all, the questions of the accession of the Baltic states were answered by V.V. Putin



        Do not add, do not turn down ...
        1. smile
          smile 23 August 2013 20: 54
          +1
          Apologet.Ru
          Great movie. I do not agree with Putin, Klaipeda still needs to be taken away! My mother lives there .... :)))
          And the State Department explicitly removes comments ... :))))
      4. smile
        smile 23 August 2013 20: 44
        0
        Vovka levka
        They lived as they wanted, they wanted and became part of the USSR. They had the right.

        By the way, I liked the article, but I have a complaint to the author. It seems to me worth mentioning that. that these lands were previously quite legitimately part of Ri. They drove there mainly as a result of repeatedly waged wars of conquest by Poland and Sweden against us, in which we gouged them. Part of the land where Latvia then appeared and Estonia was simply bought from Sweden.
        Further, these lands were in violation of all international law (if the law is discussed in the article) were torn away from Russia.
        After the destruction of local movements
        (Germans distinguished themselves in this, not just the Entente. Moreover, they destroyed them in a cruel way. For example, in Finland, after the Germans defeated the Communists, more Finns were shot than died on both sides during the database. And there were concentration camps)
        trying to preserve these lands as part of a single country, our former allies created these states there. The goal of their creation is the weakening of Russia, regardless of what kind of power we have. In fact, the Entente countries simply fulfilled their plans. who have been bearing since they involved us in 1MB.
        But the Bolsheviks simply did not have the strength to defend our land.
        I guess. describing the entry of the republics into the USSR it is impossible not to mention this.
    2. pensioner
      pensioner 23 August 2013 10: 35
      +2
      Quote: omsbon
      became a "winged pad" in NATO.

      Not. Without wings ... Themselves admitted: V. Latsis - "Wingless birds". Although Latsis himself is a very worthy person.
    3. sq
      sq 23 August 2013 11: 16
      0
      About the "miffof". Where can the LAST EUROPEAN WILDs have their own written history (in the sense of the Samogites, Aushkites)? About savages has long been known to science under the name of history, but this was hidden under the USSR, and now it is not emphasized, probably so as not to be offended. (The more primitive the savage is, the faster he gets offended. (Quote).
      Yes, and the birth of these states are obliged to the Soviet Union. And politics there is determined by all kinds of messes, the descendants of the Teutonic and Swedish conquerors.
      Quote: omsbon
      Now they have achieved a lot - they have become a "pad with wings" in NATO.

      It would be better if they became NATO hemorrhoids.
      1. smile
        smile 23 August 2013 21: 01
        +2
        sq
        By the way, the aukštaits (aukštas in Lithuanian means "tall") compose jokes about the Samogitians. In general, the Lithuanians are well mixed and it is rarely possible to distinguish them from each other. But a real Samogit is always visible - a rude speech with a wild country accent and a rather quarrelsome character ... :))) I don't know if it's true, but the Lithuanians in jokes about these fellow tribesmen consider them greedy, stupid, without a sense of humor. ..but no one wants to tell these jokes to Samogitians, since they are also very belligerent ... :))))
    4. nnz226
      nnz226 25 August 2013 00: 12
      -1
      Yes, these limitrophes acquired their "statehood" only in 1918, when the Bolshevik women through the Brest-Litovsk Peace released them. And before that, there was no question of any statehood! Savages! Under foreigners until the 18th century (until they became part of Russia), their best representatives could break out into goldsmiths and swine herders, and geniuses into grooms. Until the 10th century, in general, they wandered through the forests and lived in dens (and maybe jumped along the branches), when the Russians and "Germans" (not Russian representatives of Europe) built cities for them! Lithuania puffs its cheeks about the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania", forgetting by its stupidity that this principality was located on the land of present-day Belarus (the castle of the Lithuanian magnates Radziwills is located in Nesvizh, 60 km from Minsk) and their territory was called Zhmud (Samogitia) was a remote province , which the princes of Lithuania did not lose at cards.
  2. pinecone
    pinecone 23 August 2013 09: 41
    0
    As for the entry of the Moldavian SSR into the Soviet Union, everything was simpler here. In 1940, there was no state at all on the territory of the present Republic of Moldova. On October 12, 1924, the Moldavian ASSR was formed here as part of the Ukrainian SSR. It is clear that "autonomy" is not some kind of sovereign state entity. By the way, Grigory Kotovsky was the initiator of the creation of the Moldovan autonomy within the Ukrainian SSR.

    The present Republic of Moldova is Bessarabia, and the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic created in 1924 is the current Transnistrian Republic. With this it is clear, but the author forgot to mention the territory of Northern Bukovina, which had never belonged to Russia before, but was torn away from Romania and transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in violation of the Soviet-German agreements reached during the Moscow talks in August and September 1939. This fact was the impetus of the process of cooling relations between the two countries that began at that time.
    1. Aryan
      Aryan 23 August 2013 13: 06
      -2
      Mikhail Frunze and Sergey Lazo did more then to create an independent MSSR,
      than bandyugan Kotovsky
      but Stalin then stopped them all in different ways ...
      to whom the bullet
      who does not have the same syringe during surgery
      stupidly handed over to the Cossacks for the firebox of the engine
    2. smile
      smile 23 August 2013 21: 15
      +2
      pinecone
      The old position is about the cooling of relations .... Do you think that Romania chopped off Bessarabia and hatched plans for the creation of Great Romania right up to Odessa - there was no impetus for cooling relations? Was it just that we were able to return our own? But Bukovina, yes, we did not belong, but any aggressor should be responsible for the aggression. So we punished the Romanians for the capture of Bessarabia by the rejection of Bukovina .... so then who is guilty of cooling relations?

      You know, when a thief is caught, then ideally, they take the stolen from him and return the victim to the victim, and then they put him in a turma .... how do you feel about such a thief who has served time, who will then yell that the victim is guilty of he, the thief’s attitude towards him worsened? But this is the same .... :))))
  3. IRBIS
    IRBIS 23 August 2013 11: 00
    -12 qualifying.
    I am a patriot of my Motherland, but I just don’t understand something: when someone comes to a foreign country, it’s an occupation, and if we are, then it’s a peaceful annexation. "Myth" is a harsh historical reality. We called all this differently, in fact - just an occupation. Why persist and make fun of yourself? It was and was, times are. The situation forced me.
    1. Zopuhhh
      Zopuhhh 23 August 2013 11: 17
      +2
      Occupation is a legal term, like genocide, etc. In order to call something occupation, certain conditions must exist, in this case, from a formal point of view, these conditions do not exist, so this is a VOLUNTARY ENTRANCE ...

      It’s not worth it to mud your country when there is no reason for that, and indeed it’s not worth it
      1. IRBIS
        IRBIS 23 August 2013 11: 59
        -1
        Quote: Zopuhhh
        Occupation is a legal term, like genocide, etc. In order to call something occupation, certain conditions must exist, in this case, from a formal point of view, these conditions do not exist, so this is a VOLUNTARY ENTRANCE ...

        Occupation (from the Latin occupatio - “capture, occupation”) in the general case - the occupation by the armed forces of the state (the occupying army and navy) of the territory not belonging to it, not accompanied by the acquisition of sovereignty over it, usually temporary. The occupation should be distinguished from annexation, the act of annexation by the state of all or part of a foreign territory unilaterally.

        Well, read the signs of the occupation. As a result, you will be convinced that the occupation took place. And here "dirt" has nothing to do with the Motherland, you need to take a sober look at historical facts, and not go into patriotic paroxysm.
        1. Proud.
          Proud. 23 August 2013 13: 15
          +1
          There was an ultimatum, there was no state of war, de jure and de facto, there was no violent nature of the invasion of the USSR armed forces either. The assumption of management functions, the establishment of its administration? No, it wasn’t. Did these republics get completely new names? No. They don’t fall under the terminology-occupation. This is annexation.
        2. Poppy
          Poppy 23 August 2013 16: 22
          +2
          there was no occupation or annexation, but there was an Anschluss - like Germany with Austria or the FRG and the GDR - absolutely voluntary entry of one country into another
      2. Doctorleg
        Doctorleg 26 August 2013 18: 34
        -1
        Voluntarily - this is without ultimatums and without troops on the territory of the state
    2. biglow
      biglow 23 August 2013 12: 23
      0
      Quote: IRBIS
      I am a patriot of my Motherland, but I just don’t understand something: when someone comes to a foreign country, it’s an occupation, and if we are, then it’s a peaceful annexation. "Myth" is a harsh historical reality. We called all this differently, in fact - just an occupation. Why persist and make fun of yourself? It was and was, times are. The situation forced me.

      any state grows and develops at the expense of neighboring states. It’s all about the approaches. If there is genocide of the population and its replacement by newcomers then it is occupation, Russia has always used other methods and therefore there has always been annexation, especially since in Moldova it was an Orthodox population.
      1. dmb
        dmb 23 August 2013 15: 07
        -1
        IRBIS Maybe I could agree with you, but there are several "buts" here. If in the case of Finland your words are true, if only because it separated with the consent of the state bodies of both sides, then the Balts were not much different from the Chechen "revolutionaries" of our days. Apparently that's why they love each other so much. The "opinion of the people", built on German and Polish occupation bayonets, is not an argument to consider the limitrophe a state expressing the will of the people. So (in my opinion) Russia has returned the territories that had previously belonged to it completely legally, and taken away as a result of the occupation.
        1. smile
          smile 23 August 2013 21: 28
          0
          dmb
          Finland separated after the German corps, with the support of the White Guards (who, later, who didn’t escape, were shot in gratitude, partly put in camps) destroyed those forces of Finnish society, (mainly communists and sympathizers) that advocated leaving the Finnish province in composition of Russia. After the suppression, pro-Russian Finns were shot more than they died during the fighting. For belonging to the Communists, they were shot and imprisoned in concentration camps. Until 44 years. But the fascist organizations were the spokesmen of the state idea.
          The Russian population was shot and expelled on ethnic grounds, for the Russian White Guards, too, made no exceptions. Hi there. who believes that Mannerheim loved Russia and the Russians ... Well, then the Germans were smoothed out under the pressure of the Entente, and we were forced to recognize this Russophobic-minded semi-fascist (then semi-semi) state. which immediately began to create plans to seize our lands and to put together an anti-Russian coalition, as part of which it hoped to increase its territory at our expense by three times .... by the way. a devastated country also had to pay them a monstrous contribution then for us ....
          so that Finland was that fruit ....
  4. RBLip
    RBLip 23 August 2013 11: 38
    0
    Quote: Vovka Levka
    they had no choice, they were simply confronted with the fact

    "the rhino has poor eyesight, but this is a problem for others." This trifle is ridiculous to talk about the choice. It is more realistic to look at the state of affairs.
    Quote: IRBIS
    it's an occupation

    these are weird occupiers. came to the agrarian trifle, leaving left ports, factories, excellent roads, power plants (to the detriment of mine and your homeland). which, incidentally, these great countries themselves support in the norms. condition could not. interesting occupation turns out ...
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 23 August 2013 12: 08
      -1
      Quote: RBLip
      these are weird occupiers.

      We are talking about the events of the 39 and 40 years.
      "... On June 14-16, 1939, the USSR issued an ultimatum to the aforementioned dictators, demanding that governments be replaced by more loyal to the Soviet Union. Such governments were formed."
      We changed the government, disbanded the armed forces of the countries and carried out a "purge" of unwanted elements. Well, what is it called from the point of view of international law? Without patriotic exclamations about "best" intentions, really? We have learned to glue labels to others, and we always cover up our actions with patriotic slogans. We call others the "falsifiers" of history and call them to account, while we ourselves do the same.
      1. alone
        alone 23 August 2013 12: 25
        +3
        Quote: IRBIS
        We changed the government, disbanded the armed forces of the countries and carried out a "purge" of unwanted elements. So what is it called from the point of view of international law?


        laughing voluntary accession wassat
        1. smile
          smile 23 August 2013 21: 41
          +1
          alone
          Forgive me for stepping on your sore spot, but it’s too painful for you ... The fact is that the lands on which external forces created these countries were illegally torn away from us. The self-proclaimed Karabakh had exactly the same rights to independence as these republics (or maybe I won’t go on this topic because it’s not pleasant to you), but when discussing the Karabakh issue you don’t put anything emoticons ... if you think that you are impartial .... so, in the end, be one ... by the way, we did not create and proclaim Karabakh ... we did not recognize it ... And the Entente fostered these states and recognized .. . well and who has double standards?
      2. igordok
        igordok 23 August 2013 14: 27
        0
        Quote: IRBIS
        We changed the government, disbanded the armed forces of the countries and carried out a "purge" of unwanted elements. So what is it called from the point of view of international law?

        This is now called the "color" revolution.
        1. IRBIS
          IRBIS 23 August 2013 14: 47
          0
          Quote: igordok
          This is now called the "color" revolution.

          In fact, at all times, the introduction of troops into the territory of a sovereign state and the change of power made under any pretext was called occupation. Even if our country acted as the occupier.
          1. Poppy
            Poppy 23 August 2013 16: 26
            +3
            in the Federal Republic of Germany are American troops - is Germany occupied?
            in Japan are, in a number of other countries, are they all occupied?
            no, they stand there with the consent of governments, and in the 40th everything happened - only by mutual agreement, no occupation
          2. smile
            smile 23 August 2013 21: 35
            0
            IRBIS
            Tell me, is the occupation of a part of your country that was illegally torn away from you earlier also an occupation?
  5. Arkan
    Arkan 23 August 2013 12: 24
    +3
    Live theme. She will not give rest to the Baltic states for a long time. After all, in fact, for them, this was their first, state formation in their history.
  6. RBLip
    RBLip 23 August 2013 12: 52
    +2
    Quote: IRBIS
    Well, what is it called

    in my humble opinion, this is called a change of hostile regimes to more loyal ones with further accession of territories by these governments controlled. smile But in general, why should Russia always endure near all sorts of countries-limitrophs, moreover, clearly hostile to it? why do we all owe something around forever?
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 23 August 2013 13: 52
      0
      Quote: RBLip
      but in general, why should Russia always endure near all sorts of countries-limitrophs, besides clearly hostile to it

      Bravo! Germany did the same with Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc. With this, the Germans became "occupiers", and we "liberators". Where is the logic, comrades? Isn't this the same notorious policy of "double" standards? Or is it just a matter of choosing terms acceptable for our patient self-esteem?
      1. alone
        alone 23 August 2013 14: 20
        -1
        but there is no logic, dear Alexander. because the USSR did it. Many people think that since the USSR did it, then it’s normal. And if it was done by another, it’s an occupation. Some have not yet realized that the same problem is treated in two ways. erroneously. mistakes must be recognized, not hidden behind curtains. here when all this is recognized, Russia will have much more friends in the world than now. hi
        1. IRBIS
          IRBIS 23 August 2013 15: 33
          +2
          Quote: lonely
          but there is no logic

          This is unfortunate, Omar. Politics, of course, does not tolerate "clean" hands, but the indicator of strength is the ability to admit one's mistake. And if it was not a mistake, then call things by their proper names and explain why it was done that way. Indeed, many recognize the objective necessity of such actions on the part of the USSR.
          1. smile
            smile 23 August 2013 21: 50
            +1
            IRBIS
            It is even more regrettable when some people try to stigmatize quite legitimate and justified actions of their country .... and unreasonably .... alas ...
        2. smile
          smile 23 August 2013 21: 48
          +2
          alone
          Question. why do you think that we have no right to return the territories illegally seized from us, and you have the right to demand Karabakh and 7 of your regions? If you think. that you are right in this matter. then I want to hear your words that you agree to give Karabakh to those who live there. Almost as many years have passed as from the year 20 to the 40th. Come on, do not be shy, and do not forget to put a smiley ... :)))
  7. RBLip
    RBLip 23 August 2013 14: 25
    +4
    Quote: IRBIS
    With this, the Germans became "occupiers", and we "liberators". Where is the logic, comrades? Isn't this the same notorious policy of "double" standards?

    no. after all
    Quote: RBLip
    came to the agrarian trifle, leaving left ports, factories, excellent roads, power plants (to the detriment of my and your homeland)

    the invaders do not do that.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 23 August 2013 16: 42
      0
      Quote: RBLip
      Quote: RBLip
      came to the agrarian trifle, leaving left ports, factories, excellent roads, power plants (to the detriment of my and your homeland)

      Jews came to Palestine and did the same. But we all brand them as occupiers. Something does not grow together ... Well, yes, the Arabs did not ask them to come. As, among other things, they did not ask us in Bukovina, Transcarpathia (which were never part of Russia at all), and Finland. The Baltics were simply presented with an ultimatum so that they would respond to the request correctly. Well, in Poland, in general, the classics - the Germans, who torn it to shreds - the invaders, the USSR, which took part in this - simply regained its historical lands.
  8. pinecone
    pinecone 23 August 2013 17: 39
    +1
    Quote: IRBIS Well, in Poland, in general, the classics are Germans, who tore it to shreds - the invaders, the USSR, which took part in this - simply regained its historical lands. [/ Quote


    It would be nice if we limited ourselves only to the return of historical lands, but with Eastern Galicia there was an obvious bust.
  9. asadov
    asadov 23 August 2013 18: 33
    +2
    Stalin did everything as it should have been done. If not for us, the Germans came there. And there you look, and Peter would not have time to strengthen and the German would have been stopped not on the Volga, but in the Urals. And the fact that we built there and left them for free use is to blame for our "perestroika-reformist" leadership - the geniuses of "decay"
  10. Sirius-2
    Sirius-2 23 August 2013 19: 16
    +3
    Someone will minus me, let me. Personally, my attitude towards Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Moldovans is so negative that I am against the entry of these republics into any Eurasian community. Whether it is a customs union or a cultural and sports union. Note, I'm not talking about the military-political! The West uses them as a barrier from Russia. Well let them be a barrier, but only OUR barrier from the West! Let them have de jure "independence" thinking people understand that de facto nothing depends on them. The main thing is to stop discrimination against non-titular nations of these republics. Not only Russians, but all people living in these republics, regardless of nationality. It is not noble to infringe on them, but on a par with us, Russians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, Tatars, etc., to put - CATEGORICAL: "No!"
  11. OZI-2013
    OZI-2013 23 August 2013 20: 37
    +1
    Unfortunately, lately I've come to read a lot of nonsense about Moldova. But this is the first time. The author seems to keep the readers of this site at all for idiots who are too lazy to at least look at Wikipedia.
    So that is very short. Today's Moldova is part of the Moldavian state annexed (namely annexed) by Russia in 1812. Most of the remaining Moldova later (1859) took over Muntenia and formed Romania. After the Russian Revolution, a parliament (Sfatul Tsarii) was elected in Bessarabia, which proclaimed the formation of the Moldavian Democratic Republic. A year later, the same parliament votes for joining Romania. The Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was formed later on the territory of Ukraine (by the way, the Moldavians were almost nonexistent there). The purpose of its formation was the same as that of the author, the justification of the capture of Bessarabia in 1940.
    It would be nice if the editors of the site even somehow filtered the materials published here, and then from a patriotic one it quickly turns into a propaganda one.
    1. pensioner
      pensioner 24 August 2013 00: 09
      +2
      Quote: OZI-2013
      propaganda.

      Next time write in your own. Better not write at all. Not yours...
      1. OZI-2013
        OZI-2013 24 August 2013 07: 01
        0
        It is strange that you did not note all my mistakes. Unfortunately, the site is not in my native language (and you know it very well) and you also have to transliterate it. So be patient. By the way, I noticed that most of all Russians are so intolerant of the linguistic mistakes of others (and especially those Russians who do not know their language except their own language). For example, I speak three other languages ​​besides my native. How many are you smile ?
  12. wlad59
    wlad59 23 August 2013 21: 02
    +1
    "... After the Soviet Union regained Bessarabia, which historically belonged to Russia, which was occupied at one time by Romania, administrative reforms were carried out in these territories in 1940 ..." Why did he not write how the USSR "regained Bessarabia, which historically belonged to Russia, which was occupied in due time by Romania." And what is this "return" called from the point of view of international law? PS The Kuril Islands, by the way, "historically belonged to Japan" .... but this is so, by the way!
  13. jury08
    jury08 24 August 2013 19: 11
    +1
    Only in the Baltic states do not tell these tales - how they wanted to become part of the USSR!
  14. Technologist
    Technologist 25 August 2013 17: 32
    +1
    It was necessary to take off everything that was built for them when they left. Hans are not finished.
  15. Technologist
    Technologist 25 August 2013 17: 58
    0
    It was necessary to take off everything that was built for them when they left. Hans are not finished.