This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
No it wasn't "liberation". Replacing one occupation with another occupation is not liberation. But as I am not really feeling like having long edit war over such issue I didn't use term "re-occupied" and inserted as NPOV term as possible. I dont see anything wrong with term "captured". But if you dont like it, use whatever neutral military term(captured, conquered, took) there, but not "liberation".--
Staberinde (
talk) 10:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The territory at the time of the invasion was part of the Soviet Union. The occupation of it by the Soviet Union was not a matter for Germany to resolve, nor were the Baltic republics invaded to be liberated by Germany, they were occupied. So, during the war as far as planning of Red Army was concerned they were liberating the territory and not capturing it. In any case, capture is used for people, and occupation and liberation for territory. You think conquered is neutral?! Conquest is only possible as a means of initial offensive action. Where the action is undoing the effects of the offensive, what do you call that? All the Baltic states were incorporated into the Soviet Union. You may not like that, but that is how it was.--
mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Aww, not this s??t again.(no offence) This occupation thing has been argued to death in
Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states, and probably will be argued there in the future too. Soviet POV is that it was "liberation", Baltic POV is that it was "re-occupation". Easiest and most logical solution is to pick apolitical term and let that subject to be discussed in detail in appropriate articles. I have seen "captured" being used for towns, territories and stuff too, so I dont agree with it being limited to personel.--
Staberinde (
talk) 14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply