The Soviet Occupation of Estonia 1944-1991

[Anne G,]

" 3. In fact the authors of the report accused Soviet authorities in forcible transfer of pouplation rather then in forcible mobilization. This is clearly seen from the title of the relevant paragraph of the report "THE FORCED TRANSFER OF ESTONIAN MEN TOTHE SOVIET UNION IN JULY AND AUGUST OF 1941". Then the authors state that mobilization was merely a "guise" for deportation of Estonian population. The same statement is reiterated in more explicit form in the "White book". However the authors don't provide serious proofs for this statement. I don't think that the transfer of the armymen under orders of their superiours could be classified as "deportation", so I remain with opinion that this accusition is groundless.

Well, what would a normal state do in a situation like that? Of course the decision would be based on the fact that the Estonian soldiers will fight better for their own homes and families and therefore they should stay in Estonia where they also know the territory.

There could be only two reasons to move them elsewhere: first, the Estonians couldn't be trusted to fight for the USSR but to go over for the German army or go in hiding and act as partisans. Second, and a more sinister reason, would be that it was a part of the same process where thousands of Estonians were sent in Siberia in June 1941 (and again in 1949).

[Yuri]

" 3. In fact the authors of the report accused Soviet authorities in forcible transfer of pouplation rather then in forcible mobilization. This is clearly seen from the title of the relevant paragraph of the report "THE FORCED TRANSFER OF ESTONIAN MEN TOTHE SOVIET UNION IN JULY AND AUGUST OF 1941". Then the authors state that mobilization was merely a "guise" for deportation of Estonian population. The same statement is reiterated in more explicit form in the "White book". However the authors don't provide serious proofs for this statement. I don't think that the transfer of the armymen under orders of their superiours could be classified as "deportation", so I remain with opinion that this accusition is groundless.

Well, what would a normal state do in a situation like that? Of course the decision would be based on the fact that the Estonian soldiers will fight better for their own homes and families and therefore they should stay in Estonia where they also know the territory.

There could be only two reasons to move them elsewhere: first, the Estonians couldn't be trusted to fight for the USSR but to go over for the German army or go in hiding and act as partisans. Second, and a more sinister reason, would be that it was a part of the same process where thousands of Estonians were sent in Siberia in June 1941 (and again in 1949).

At you a the system mistake.
Were moved not Estonians, were moved citizens of the Estonian SSR. The attribute "nationality" was not present among criteria on which selection of people was made for resettlement.
The purpose of eviction not in ethnic cleaning.
The purpose of eviction – to increase safety of the state.
The purpose of eviction to remove with probable in the near future a battlefield:
- persons already cooperating with the potential enemy, that is, persons cooperating with the German investigation and gestapo, and as members the secret (underground) organization;
- persons concerning whom there were weighty bases to assume, that in forthcoming war they will cooperate with the enemy.
In it the reason of presence among moved citizens Estonian SSR of persons of different nationalities – Russian, Jews, Poles, Germans and, naturally, Estonians.

[Art]

Finland never de jure recognized the Estonian joining to USSR, and 1991, when Estonia separated from USSR, Finland did not re-recognize the Estonian independence, as at Finnish point of view, Estonia never legally joined USSR, and the earlier recognition from 1920 (IIRC) was (still) in force.

Thanks, but it is not exactly what I was asking for. I'm interested not in position of individual states but in status of Estonia in 1940-91 from the point of view of universally applied international law, and I'm also interested in whether such a definite status existed.

[Art]

There could be only two reasons to move them elsewhere

First, to have an unbiased position I must admit that the Soviet authorities had indeed some doubts in the loyalty of the Estonian servicemen, and these doubts were not groundless. However, the practice of the mobilization in Estonia didn't differ significantly from the same practice in many other regions of USSR - it was widely used to conduct the mobilization of all men liable to army service in endangered regions and evacuate them to the rear. The evident aim of such actions was to save the manpower recources of the territoties which were under threat of enemy occupation. See an example (GKO decree #763 of 11th October 1941):
http://www.soldat.ru/doc/gko/text/0763.html
I don't have time to translate the whole document, but in brief the GKO ordered to carry out the mobilization of all men liable to military service up too the age of 40 in the eastern part of Ukraine and several regions of the central part of RSFSR. The men mobilized in Orel, Kursk and Voronezh region had to be sent to Ural militray district, in the eastern Ukraine - to Volga militray district, in Rostov and Krasnodar region - either to Stalingrad or Ural military dictrict. I recomend to have a look at map to see where is Kursk and were is Ural.
So if there were no significant difference in the way the mobilization was conducted in Estonia and other parts of USSR then there is no reason to treat it like a "hidden deportation".

[Tapani K.]

Finland never de jure recognized the Estonian joining to USSR, and 1991, when Estonia separated from USSR, Finland did not re-recognize the Estonian independence, as at Finnish point of view, Estonia never legally joined USSR, and the earlier recognition from 1920 (IIRC) was (still) in force.

Thanks, but it is not exactly what I was asking for. I'm interested not in position of individual states but in status of Estonia in 1940-91 from the point of view of universally applied international law, and I'm also interested in whether such a definite status existed.

How about this:

The Court notes, first, that Estonia lost its independence as a result of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), concluded on 23 August 1939, and the secret additional protocols thereto. Following an ultimatum to set up Soviet military bases in Estonia in 1939, a large-scale entry of the Soviet army into Estonia took place in June 1940. The lawful government of the country was overthrown and Soviet rule was imposed by force. The totalitarian communist regime of the Soviet Union conducted large-scale and systematic actions against the Estonian population, including, for example, the deportation of about 10,000 persons on 14 June 1941 and of more than 20,000 on 25 March 1949. |1|

After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991. Accordingly, Estonia as a State was temporarily prevented from fulfilling its international commitments. It acceded to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity only on 21 October 1991; pertinent amendments to the Criminal Code, including Article 61-1, entered into force on 9 December 1994.

This is from: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/impu/kolk.html

regards,
Tapani K.

[Juha Tompuri]

Thanks Tapani.

Seems that we Finns were a bit ahead of our time at our decision on 1991.

A question: was the status of Estonia as an occupied territory ever recognized by international law? .

Also it would be interesting to know the list of the countries that had officially recognized the legacy of Estonia "joining" to the USSR before the deportations and forced recruitment.

Regards, Juha

[oulu]

I do not believe that many Western governments explicitly recognized the annexation of Baltic states into USSR. At least such major Western nations like USA, United Kingdom and German Federal Republic never recognized it. USA even recognized an Estonian diplomatic legation all the time. When American officials had to visit the Estonian territory during 1944 - 1991 they actually asked permission to do so from these Estonian diplomats in exile. German Federal Republic was also very careful that it did not say or do anything that could be interpreted as a recognition of the annexation. E.g. German consular officials who worked in the area of Baltic states were officially accredited to the CITIES of Tallinn, Riga etc. , Not to Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania so that their work could not be interpreted even as an indirect recognition of Soviet Balticum.

[Allen Milcic]

If I remember correctly, maps published in Canada prior to the demise of the Soviet Union had a disclaimer printed by the 3 Baltic republics, stating that the inclusion of them into the SU was not recognized.

Allen/

[Yuri]

First, on the countries of the West light was not left by a wedge.
Except for the countries of the West there are countries of the Near East, Middle East and the Far East. Besides there are still countries of Africa, Indochina and South America.
Second, in 1975 all European states and as the USA and Canada have obviously recognized borders of Soviet Union. Specify to me what at signing the Helsinki act in 1975 did the clause of the European countries concerning Baltic republics.
Thirdly, a recognition or not a recognition the countries of the West about things this private affair.
The countries of the West till 1972 did not recognize the Chinese National Republic. Also what?
The countries of the West did not recognize, and the USA do not recognize Republic Cuba and socialist Vietnam about one today. Also, what?

[Allen Milcic]

International recognition, obviously, gives legitimacy to any act of territorial annexation, unification, secession etc. by a state or territory. Most of these are not "private affairs", but rather matters of world interest.

Allen/

[Yuri]

The international recognition of the fact of unification Estonian SSR in structure of Union SSR has been quite provided. Till 1975 the fact of unification Estonian SSR in structure of Union SSR recognized: Sweden, Great Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Angola and so on and so forth.
If one of the countries of the West did not wish to recognize this obvious fact it was her private affair.

The same to recognize or to not recognize the fact of association of Vietnam this private business the USA and any other state of the West.
The international recognition of the fact of association of Vietnam has been provided in 1975 with a recognition of this fact on the part of the USSR, China and many states of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

I do not know, that in 1975 at signing the Helsinki act someone has publicly refused to recognize the fact of unification Estonian SSR in structure of Union SSR.
If someone at night in a dark room having covered by a dense blanket spoke, that does not recognize the fact of unification Estonian SSR in structure of Union SSR, this his private affair.

[David Thompson]

Art asked:

I'm interested not in position of individual states but in status of Estonia in 1940-91 from the point of view of universally applied international law, and I'm also interested in whether such a definite status existed.

I think there was a definite status that existed, though "broadly accepted" international law is probably a more accurate description than "universally applied."

The status of Estonia in 1940-1991 was akin to the status of Manchukuo in 1931-1945, Abyssinia in 1937-1942, and the Reich Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in 1939-1945. The annexation of Estonia, the creation of the puppet states of Manchukuo and Bohemia-Moravia, and the conquest and colonization of Ethiopia were all generally thought to violate the Covenant of the League of Nations
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm

in particular, Article 10:

ARTICLE 10.

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art10

The League of Nations didn't do much about those situations, in part because Germany, Japan and Italy had withdrawn from membership in the League, and the USSR was expelled from the League in December 1939.

The same principal of territorial integrity was also part of the United Nations Charter
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

specifically, in Article 2, sections (3) and (4)

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. . . .

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

These provisions are now common in international organizations. See, for example, the Charter of the Organization of American States, Articles 10-12
http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/charter.html

and the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. res. 2625, Annex, 25 UN GAOR, Supp. (No. 28), U.N. Doc. A/5217 at 121 (1970).
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/pr ... s1970.html

The territorial integrity principal of international law can now be considered well-established, but there are problems of this sort which are still around today, such as the annexation of Tibet by China or the occupation of the west bank of the former Transjordan (now Jordan) by Israel.

[David Thompson]

Yuri -- You wrote:

The international recognition of the fact of unification Estonian SSR in structure of Union SSR has been quite provided. Till 1975 the fact of unification Estonian SSR in structure of Union SSR recognized: Sweden, Great Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Angola and so on and so forth.

Please source your claims for our readers, so they can see the documents for themselves and do further research if they're interested.

[Yuri]

The telegram of the national commissioner foreign USSR V.M.Molotov has put to plenipotentiary of the USSR in the USA K.A.Umansky.

On September, 27, 1940.

On September, 26 has accepted Shteingard [ambassador the USA in the USSR-Yuri]. In conversation with me Shteingard has noted, that after arrival in May in the USA it{he} has met difficulties in a question of improvement of the ñîâåòñêî-American attitudes{relations} of that Soviet Union the actions in Poland, Bessarabia and Baltic contrary to - äå principles of independence of the small countries has destroyed the benevolent attitude{relation} to at Americans.

Then Shteingard spoke about having place after falling France to change in sights of Americans and the American Government which - äå have finished with former carelessness and idealism and began to look at the world where the politics is carried out only by force realistically.
These changes, first of all, were expressed in an intensive arms programme about which Shteingard began to tell rather in detail. After turn of the American Government aside "realism" Shteingard considers, that circumstances favour to statement of a question on improvement of the Soviet-American relations.

Further Shteingard spoke, that as if thanking his assistance and your conversations with Óýëëèñîì and has been resolved{allowed} it is glad questions of the Soviet-American attitudes{relations} (the sanction of export of 70 % of the bought equipment, the freight of the American steamships, sale of gasoline and the consent to delivery of carload axes under the Soviet-Swedish contract).

Taking into account these friendly actions about the side the USA, the American government expects, as the Soviet Government will make something for the further improvement of mutual relations.

Then Shteingard poured out a heap of fine claims and as asked the sanction to open the American consulate in Vladivostok, that I promised to find out

Concerning gold of Balts Shteingard has declared, that the delay gold has no under itself political underlying reason and is only business of financial calculation for banks of Balts have the big duty to the USA, not including the American capital investments in Balts and a duty of private{individual} citizens of the Baltic countries.

I parried this application that Sweden did not detain gold of the Baltic countries available at her and have not prevented to sell it{him} to the State Bank of the USSR, having declared simultaneously the USSR the claims on Balts.

In general anything new, essential Shteingard has not brought.

I inform you for attention
Molotov

(Archive of Foreign policy of the Russian Federation
AVP RF. f. 059, op. 1, p. 320, d. 2220, l. 56-57)

Then, in 1940, Sweden liquidated embassies and representations of the Baltic states.
In the beginning of 1941 Germany, it is similar to Sweden, has settled from the USSR all questions on the fact of ocurrence Baltic the states in structure of the USSR.

In 1943 has recognized rights of the USSR on gold of the Baltic states England. Available in the English banks gold of the Baltic states went on account of to payments for deliveries to the USSR arms.
Then with England questions on transfer of the USSR of steamships belonging to the Baltic states have been settled.

In 1955 diplomatic relations with Germany have been established. Thus the government of chancellor Adenauer did not declare anything that specified that Germany does not recognize ocurrence of Estonia in structure of the USSR.

Thus, the affairs of the state of Europe proved a recognition of legality of ocurrence of Estonia in structure of the USSR.

In 1975 during signing the Helsinki act any of the governments of the states of Europe, including the governments the USA and Canada, has not made the official application for non-recognition of the fact of ocurrence of Estonia (and other Baltic states) in structure of the USSR.
Russian no interests that the governments of some European states spoke night, in a dark room under a dense blanket a little.

All that I here have informed it well-known the fact. However, you demand from me acknowledgement{confirmation} to these facts. On the other hand, my opponents except for proofless propaganda applications do not give anything.

Òåëåãðàììà íàðêîìà èíîñòðàííûõ äåë ÑÑÑÐ Â. Ì. Ìîëîòîâà
ïîëíîìî÷íîìó ïðåäñòàâèòåëþ ÑÑÑÐ â ÑØÀ Ê. À. Óìàíñêîìó.

27 ñåíòÿáðÿ 1940 ã.

26 ñåíòÿáðÿ ïðèíÿë Øòåéíãàðäà. Â áåñåäå ñî ìíîé Øòåéíãàðä îòìåòèë, ÷òî ïî ïðèåçäå â ìàå ìåñÿöå â ÑØÀ îí âñòðåòèë òðóäíîñòè â âîïðîñå óëó÷øåíèÿ ñîâåòñêî-àìåðèêàíñêèõ îòíîøåíèé èç-çà òîãî, ÷òî Ñîâåòñêèé Ñîþç ñâîèìè äåéñòâèÿìè â Ïîëüøå, Áåñàðàáèè è Ïðèáàëòèêå âîïðåêè-äå ïðèíöèïàì íåçàâèñèìîñòè ìàëûõ ñòðàí ðàçðóøèë ó àìåðèêàíöåâ áëàãîæåëàòåëüíîå ê ñåáå îòíîøåíèå.

Çàòåì Øòåéíãàðä ãîâîðèë î ïðîèñøåäøèõ ïîñëå ïàäåíèÿ Ôðàíöèè ïåðåìåíå âî âçãëÿäàõ àìåðèêàíöåâ è Àìåðèêàíñêîãî Ïðàâèòåëüñòâà, êîòîðûå-äå ïîêîí÷èëè ñ ïðåæíåé áåñïå÷íîñòüþ è èäåàëèçìîì è ñòàëè ðåàëèñòè÷åñêè ñìîòðåòü íà ìèð, ãäå ïîëèòèêà îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ òîëüêî ñèëîé. Ýòè èçìåíåíèÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, âûðàçèëèñü â èíòåíñèâíîé ïðîãðàììå âîîðóæåíèé, î êîòîðûõ Øòåéíãàðä ñòàë ðàññêàçûâàòü äîâîëüíî ïîäðîáíî. Ïîñëå ïîâîðîòà Àìåðèêàíñêîãî Ïðàâèòåëüñòâà â ñòîðîíó «ðåàëèçìà» Øòåéíãàðä ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà áëàãîïðèÿòñòâóþò ïîñòàíîâêå âîïðîñà îá óëó÷øåíèè ñîâåòñêî-àìåðèêàíñêèõ îòíîøåíèé.

Äàëåå Øòåéíãàðä ãîâîðèë, ÷òî áóäòî áû áëàãîäàðÿ åãî ñîäåéñòâèþ è Âàøèì áåñåäàì ñ Óýëëèñîì è áûë ðàçðåø¸í ðàä âîïðîñîâ ñîâåòñêî-àìåðèêàíñêèõ îòíîøåíèé (ðàçðåøåíèå âûâîçà 70% êóïëåííîãî îáîðóäîâàíèÿ, ôðàõòà àìåðèêàíñêèõ ïàðîõîäîâ, ïðîäàæå áåíçèíà è ñîãëàñèå íà ïîñòàâêó âàãîííûõ îñåé ïî ñîâåòñêî-øâåäñêîìó äîãîâîðó).

Ó÷èòûâàÿ ýòè äðóæåñêèå äåéñòâèÿ ñî ñòîðîíó ÑØÀ, Àìåðèêàíñêîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî îæèäàåò, ÷òî è Ñîâåòñêîå Ïðàâèòåëüñòâî ñäåëàåò ÷òî-ëèáî äëÿ äàëüíåéøåãî óëó÷øåíèÿ âçàèìîîòíîøåíèé.
Çàòåì Øòåéíãàðä âûñûïàë êó÷ó ìåëêèõ ïðåòåíçèé, à òàê æå ïðîñèë ðàçðåøåíèå îòêðûòü àìåðèêàíñêîå êîíñóëüñòâî âî Âëàäèâîñòîêå, ÷òî ÿ îáåùàë âûÿñíèòü

Îòíîñèòåëüíî çîëîòà Ïðèáàëòîâ Øòåéíãàðä çàÿâèë, ÷òî çàäåðæêà çîëîòî íå èìååò ïîä ñîáîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïîäîïë¸êè è ÿâëÿåòñÿ ëèøü äåëîì ôèíàíñîâîãî ðàñ÷¸òà, èáî áàíêè Ïðèáàëòîâ èìåþò áîëüøóþ çàäîëäæíîñòü ÑØÀ, íå ñ÷èòàÿ àìåðèêàíñêèõ êàïèòàëîâëîæåíèé â Ïðèáàëòàõ è çàäîëæíîñòü ÷àñòíûõ ãðàæäàí ïðèáàëòèéñêèõ ñòðàí. ß ïàðèðîâàë ýòî çàÿâëåíèå òåì, ÷òî Øâåöèÿ íå çàäåðæèâàëà èìåþùååñÿ ó íåå çîëîòî Ïðèáàëòèéñêèõ ñòðàí è íå ïîìåøàëî åãî ïðîäàòü Ãîñáàíêó ÑÑÑÐ, çàÿâèâ îäíîâðåìåííî ÑÑÑÐ ñâîè ïðåòåíçèè ïî ïðèáàëòàì.

 îáùåì íè÷åãî íîâîãî, ñóùåñòâåííîãî Øòåéíãàðä íå ïðèâåç.
Ñîîáùàþ Âàì äëÿ ñâåäåíèÿ
Ìîëîòîâ

(ÀÂÏ ÐÔ. ô. 059, îï. 1, ï. 320, ä. 2220, ë. 56-57)

[oulu]

The fact that county A (e.g. German Federal Republic) has diplomatic relations with the country B (e.g. Soviet Union) does not mean that country A recognizes all territorial claims made by country B: If Russia today has diplomatic relations with Israel it does not mean that Russia recognizes the Israeli occupation of West Bank. When European and North American countries signed Helsinki declarations in 1975 they recognized existing borders as they understood them. The actual borderlines were not specified. Therefore, USA, UK and German Federal Republic also implicitly recognized the border BETWEEN Estonia and Soviet Union (i.e.line of Tartu peace 1920), Estonia and Latvia, Latvia and Soviet Union etc. If those governments actually meant that they were withdrawing their recognition of the intependence of baltic states, they should have actually said so. The act of signing some general declarations does not mean that.

The fact remains that even after 1975 Western governments officially recognized Baltic states and therefore did not recognize their annexation. Ronald Reagan had many contacts with the Baltic diplomatic legations in exile and officially negotiated with them on the issues that concerned Balticum. In the lobby of the office of American secretary of state there were always present the flags of baltic nations, like the flags of all officially recognized states. US secretary of states especially pointed this out to the president of Estonia Lennart Meri. The first German Amabassador to the again independent Estonia had been earlier consul in charge of the area Baltic states. His accreditation in the late late 80ies and early 90ies had been to the cities of Tallinn and Riga. This only changed to Estonia and Latvia after those countries regained their independence de facto. These are not private affairs but clear public announcements. These symbolic gestures show how these Western nations understood the relations between nations and that is what international law is: relations between nations.