Talk:Estonia in World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Estonia in World War II is part of the WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Baltic states military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

A fact from Estonia in World War II appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 July 2007.

Contents 1 collaboration 2 Historical Soviet Sources 3 Edit warring 4 (no) third opinion. 5 Flag icons 6 Introduction

[edit] collaboration

There seems to be an extremely low profile given to the issue of collaboration. This is strange considering it is by far the most notorious and controversial aspect of Estonia's experience in World War II. For this reason, from my point of view, collaboration should at the very least be mentioned in the introduction and given a full section of its own.Nwe 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Nwe. Definitely, any properly sourced and referenced facts about collaboration with the occupying powers could be more detailedly listed somewhere. But in general, since the scope of this article is an enormous already, I'd suggest starting and expanding the spreads, main articles and addressing the facts, case by case with appropriate refs more in detail over there.

Regarding the article here, I agree that during the soviet occupations there is only one name and one political party mentioned at the moment that were working closely with the Soviet occupying powers. That there could be lists in much more detail like the 7 native Estonians that have been accused of crimes against humanity and are listed one by one under the German occupation in the article The Estonian Self-Administration during the German occupation could have a section here perhaps.

But since this article is a bit over loaded already, the last but not least, the article has survived the listing on the front page of WP and therefore should be in a good condition overall. More detailed collaboration facts with the occupying powers would be much better off if those had closer coverage on the spreads. There is Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany already listed as the main article and Occupation of Estonia by USSR coming out any time soon so I would narrow the current article down instead as the threads are getting expanded.

Please note though that listing anybody by name as a collaborator without a properly referenced court order is not a fact but an opinion. Further on, it would be illegal and therefore can't be used in WP , specially if it's about living persons. I'm sure you're aware of it:

Thanks--Termer 06:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Soviet Sources

Please stop edit warring and engage in a discussion instead. Since its a fact that the authenticity and actual dates of those images is questioned, I have requested comments from the Estonian Film Archives to sort out the political comments added to the images. Please also familiarize yourself with the history according to the Soviet Sources and stop pushing alternative viewpoints like de jure recognition under it. Even the current Russian government doesn't admit to it, therefore other than the historical soviet viewpoints that are clearly sourced shouldn't be used under this section. So, meanwhile I'm going to revert the article to a previous clean state and thereafter, please feel free to discuss the issues here and go on with editing the section after a consensus is met. Thanks!--Termer 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet sources on modern history are far from reliable, and they fail several parts of 'reliable' definition at WP:RS. That said, they certainly can be used to describe Soviet POV, as long as it is clearly noted in the article for what it is.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus. Soviet history sources are not reliable, but they can stay in the article - but their unreliability should be pointed out. As for the pictures - without proper explanation, they represent POV view - that Estonia voluntarily joined Soviet Union. My comment to the first picture was sourced and correct, to the second, it should be added that participating in those marches was not voluntary. Sander Säde 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks User:Petri_Krohn for making it clear that you're not interested in a discussion for finding a consensus but are just after your own agenda. Calling lets say Katyn massacre during the Soviet invasion of Poland "very little hostilities" explained it all. Since you have shown a pattern of similar disruptive edits driven by a political agenda also elsewhere, I'm calling for all editors ASAP to revert any edits done my User:Petri_Krohn here until he/she comes to respect a policy that's called Consensus.--Termer 04:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sander Säde. I personally don't share your concerns regarding the “POV that Estonia voluntarily joined the Soviet Union”. Since such a POV can only be common to rapists that could claim the victim has asked for it. It's very common that it happens in rape cases in general so such a POV shouldn't surprise anybody. It would be against common sense though to suggest that a sovereign country that had fought a war against it's former master just about 20 years ago, would ask for getting rid of its gained sovereignty in benefit to the historical oppressor. Therefore please lets leave any bystanders an ability to make the judgments if needed. I think those staged images from the era under the discussion can be tolerated in case none of the political comments are used as an addition. --Termer 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I do like the pictures, although I do not understand why Petri didn't pick one from June meetings - where the double line of Soviet seamen around the meeting is visible... or, come to think of it, I do understand why Petri didn't pick one of these, very well.

Problem is that Wikipedia must be written for "Joe Average", if you will, and therefore that section needs to mention how flawed the Soviet sources are when it comes to history. Otherwise that section describes how happy Estonians were to join Soviet Union, like it was taught at schools during occupation. None of those meetings were voluntary... heh, I remember when my older sisters were forced to go to Victory Day parade - or their grade for behavior would get lowered and they would have to repeat the class - and that was early eighties. Sander Säde 09:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, got the pic up there with the facts, including the way it's listed in the archives.--Termer 10:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

OK, we have an edit warrior here who doesn't like the pictography in the article that has gone through the front page of WP. Please anybody feel free to revert his/her edit since he/she has chosen to just go ahead explaining the actions and opinions with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm going to restore "the pictography" every second day until a consensus has been met on this. Thanks--Termer 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not slander me or you will be promptly reported for a WP:CIV violation. The pictograms are absurd, and plenty of sub-par stuff has gotten by DYK (which passes nearly all nominations). Biruitorul 00:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about those flag icons in text? :) You guys have found a thing to fight about. Actually WP style guidelines tell you to NOT use flags like that and I have to agree. It's not of very good taste. Cool down everyone, no point to get upset for small things like that. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 07:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I personally prefer the version with flags. As WP:FLAG notes, the flags can harm continuity and overuse should be avoided, but this is a somewhat special case since the flag images have higher-than-usual relevance to the surrounding text. It's really just a trade-off; I prefer the version which includes the flags, but there's really no "correct" side to the discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd have to say I prefer the text without the flags. It appears that the flag icons are being used to notate occupation and/or sovereignty? If that's the case, maybe a subsection can be created in a time-line format to help illustrate the struggle:

Date
Sovereign (flag)

Just an idea. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Biruitorul, do not slander? Ha-ha:-D ,I'm sorry, moa sub-literate according to you, know nothing civil. Therefore please feel free to report me for WP:CIV violation. I almost wish that I could give you a better reason to do so since I think that someone who believes him/herself to be smarter than tons of other editors that have been over this article before and didn't have any problems with the pictography, should get some more pleasure out of this -found a thing to fight about. I agree it's a silly fight although there was a good reason to include these flags, it helped to tell the story. So I hope Biruitorul , you could show some good faith here, actually both of you 2 nativ al limbii române guys, (good cooperation BTW in reverting job!) restore the pics and take my word that I'll come up with a better solution to illustrate the story. And Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles, first of all, it's not a policy. The second it was fully in compliance with Flag icons should be useful, rather than just decorative, therefore as far as I'm concerned, you have no case here. Specially because the flipping of the flags on top of that tower is a core of the story. Thanks!--Termer 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
PS.Or should we make an infobox out of it?
PPS. A picture tells a hundred words!

[edit] (no) third opinion.

Hello.

Sorry, but I will not respond to the request placed at Third opinion, since more than two people are involved in the dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 02:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because a couple of us already saw the third opinion request. ;) If you don't want to participate we can't stop you, but I don't see any harm in pitching in your two cents to make consensus a little less foggy. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

nth opinion then: off with the flags; they have no place there. — Coren ^(talk) 03:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag icons

Why were the flag icons removed? They made the article a lot easier. I understand, that this is not common to Wikipedia (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)), but the flag at the top of Pikk Hermann tower basically shows who rules in the city at the moment. I think the flag icons should be brought back. Any other opinions? H2ppyme 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

"The fate of Estonia in World War II was decided by the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact and its Secret Additional Protocol of August 1939."

Really? I thought the fate of Estonia in World War II would have been decided by the outcomes of various battles... after all, Pacts, Protocols, and plans cannot predict the outcome of military efforts. In any case, though it may be a semantic argument, I think the article intro should focus more on the role of Estonia in the war, rather than its fate. Otherwise, an excellent, long, detailed, thorough, and well-cited piece. LordAmeth (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Estonia as a country had no role in the war, only fate that was decided by how the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany divided the countries inbetween them and that was it. The only battle there was between Estonian forces and Soviets in 1940, at Raua street mentioned in the article. Later in 1944 Estonian admiral Johan Pitka tried to form Estonian forces but it was too late. And there wouldn't have much they could have done anyway. Perhaps you missed the fact that it's a country of 1 million people we're talking about here. Population of just a bit more than twice of Luxembourg nowadays. So what kind of outcomes of various battles would you have predicted in case the leaders of Estonia instead of fully surrendering would have put their bets on going into war and battles with overwhelming Soviet forces in 1940 at the time when Germans just marched into Paris?--Termer (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)