A fact from Estonia in World War II appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
"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)
In this article it says "World War II losses in Estonia, estimated at around 25%". In the article World War II casualties however, the deaths as % of 1939 population are shown 3.62% of population. This does not mention any military deaths, just as noone died. They are instead, counted for the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany. The "owner" of this article doesn't let anyone to change things on that page and reverts all edits, that add information to the tables. Anyone, who knows more about WW2 could try to change something in that article.
Also, a suggestion for this article. Could there be summarized tables for the number of mobilised, deported, emigrees and the number of deaths? Right now it's like searching a needle in a haystack when searching for numbers. H2ppyme ( talk) 11:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The pharse: During the first Soviet occupation of 1940-41 about 500 Jews were deported to Siberia. is completely misleading. Probably, those jews were the luckiest jews in Estonia. My mother's stepfather was a private in the Polish Army. After Soviet occupation of westen Bielorussia he was deported to Ural and served in auxilliary battalion until 1944. Then he was sent to Eastern Front, wounded and finished the War in Germany. Upon returning home he found his whole family to be killed by Nazies. I personally knew several other jews who survived exclusivelly because they were deported to Ural. Therefore, I propose to remove this phrase or to provide a proper commentary.
Best regards, --
Paul Siebert (
talk)
23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The 500 Jews that were deported to Siberia in 1940 along with other "enemies of the Soviet people", because they were either rich or held significant positions in the society most likely were not "the luckiest". The luckiest back then I'd bet were the few that made it to the West and perhaps to certain extent the ones that had communist sympathies and evacuated together with the Soviets before the Nazis arrived in 1941. The rest out of total 2000 Estonian Jews about 1000 got trapped and were killed by the Nazis. --
Termer (
talk)
00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, If those 500 were not deported, the amount of Jews killed by Nazis would be 1,500. is a speculation and not any different from if I'd say If those 500 were not deported, they would have escaped to Sweden.
And there are ethnic Russians arrested by NKVD listed in the article. Regarding Germans than their faith should be clear too. No Germans were arrested by NKVD because Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies at that point and all the Germans were free to leave to Germany. So the article should be pretty clear about the facts, so sorry that you find the part misleading. But feel free to clarify if you think it's necessary to point out that they were deported not because they were Jews but because the Soviet regime repressed everybody that have had either some economical or political significance in the society.--
Termer (
talk)
04:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not inclined to trust accounts of eyewitness, because, although factually correct, they frequently create a wrong general picture. I agree that it would be a fundamental mistake to project family history to the world history. I just gave it as an example that, to my opinion, fits into the more general picture.
Let's stick to sources. Wheatcroft devoted a separate article to the comparison of Stalin's and Hitler's policy. He analyzed Hitler and Stalin using the same scientific approach, therefore, his conclusion seem to be highly reliable. He concludes:
"The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans. These are clearly much lower figures than those for whom Hitler's regime was responsible."Weathcroft The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings 1930-45 Author(s): Stephen Wheatcroft Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353
— page 1334.
Of course, millions of Soviet people who died as a result of famines etc. are not included into these figure. However, let me point out that the latter is hardly relevant to Estonia.
Wheatcroft clearly distinguish "between purposive killing and deaths from criminal neglect and irresponsibility", so his overall conclusion is.
"The nature of Soviet repression and mass killing was clearly far more complex than normally assumed. Mass purposive killings in terms of executions were probably in the order of one million and probably as large as the total number of recorded deaths in the Gulag. In this narrowest category of purposefully caused deaths, the situation is exactly the opposite to that generally accepted. Hitler caused the murder of at least 5 million innocent people largely, it would appear, because he did not like Jews and communists. Stalin by contrast can be charged with causing the purposive death of something in the order of a million people. Furthermore the purposive deaths caused by Hitler fit more closely into the category of 'murder', while those caused by Stalin fit more closely the category of 'execution'. Stalin undoubtedly caused many innocent people to be executed, but it seems likely that he thought many of them guilty of crimes against the state and felt that the execution of others would act as a deterent to the guilty. He signed the papers and insisted on documentation. Hitler, by contrast, wanted to be rid of the Jews and communists simply because they were Jews and communists. He was not concerned about making any pretence at legality. He was careful not to sign anything on this matter and was equally insistent on no documentation.
It is only when we get into the broader categories of causing death by criminal neglect and ruthlessness that Stalin probably exceeds Hitler, but here we have to remember that the USSR was much larger than Germany and that death rates in the best of times had always been significantly higher in Russia than in Germany.
The Gulag was neither as large nor as deadly as it is often presented, it was not a death camp, although in cases of general food shortage (1932-33 and 1942-43) it would suffer significantly more than the population at large. There were not 12 million deaths in the camps as suggested by Maier; and it seems highly unlikely that there were as many as 7 million deaths between 1935 and 1941 as claimed by Conquest citing Mikoyan's son. With a maximum number of inmates of 1.5 million in 1941 the Gulag was nevertheless of demographic significance and more than twenty times as large as the prewar Nazi concentration camp system at its peak following Kristallnacht. But all the same, twenty times as large as pre-war Nazi concentration camps does not make anything like Auschwitz"
— ibid
I fully realise that people from the Baltic countries had much more problems with Stalin than with Hitler, however, to my opinion, it is necessary to keep all presented above in mind.
Best regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I generally agree with Paul that the statement is disturbing in its vagueness. First of all, an unknown proportion of the Jews were taken to Siberia as a geographic region. If they were taken to GULAG, it should say so. The reader can get the rest from the GULAG article. -- Erikupoeg ( talk) 16:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The image Image:German Soviet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
OK FeelSunny, this has gone a bit too far! Please stop inserting your personal commentaries into this article [1] [2] [3] [4]. Please note that "half and half" and/or 50/50 is an expression in English and the citation in the article is a figurative speech that doesn't have anything to do with any countries.-- Termer ( talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think I want this discussion. If a "majority of editors" thinks like this, have it as you like it. FeelSunny ( talk) 17:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If the first sentence says "The fate of Estonia in World War II was decided by the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact", it is not true. MRP only pushed things to move, but did not completely decide Estonia's fate, because most of Estonian people did not want to belong into Soviet Union and gave Soviets heavy resistance in 1941-1945. I think that battles in 1944 decided Estonia's fate much more than Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Two men in Moscow had no right to decide over fate of other states and they could not prohibit resistance of Estonian people. DJ Sturm ( talk) 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
But if Estonia had not knuckle under Soviets in 1939 or 1940 and fight against them, as Finland did, then it's very possible Estonia would stood free. DJ Sturm ( talk) 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering, the image [6] added by DJ Sturm, it says "Soldiers with Tiger I during the Battle of Narva", but nothing in the image description on Commons [7] connects it with the place and the time. It says "Russland, Panzer VI (Tiger I), Soldaten im Schnee", meaning "Russia, Panzer VI (Tiger I), Soldiers in Snow". And the additional description -Extra information: "Sowjetunion.- Panzer VI "Tiger I" auf Straße, Infanterie-Kolonne mit weißen Tarnanzügen auf dem Marsch auf verschneiter Straße; Eins Kp Lw zbV". Meaning "Soviet Union. - Panzer VI "Tiger I" on the street, Infantry platoon wearing white camouflage suits march on the snowy road.".. So what has that to do with the Battle of Narva? In case such a connection can't be established that the image has anything to do with Estonia in WW II, the pic should be removed.-- Termer ( talk) 18:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This photo is taken in 1944, and as we can see there snow and Tiger I, it must be near to Narva. In Finland no Tigers were used and in south of "Heeresgruppe Nord" front, there is no so much snow at winter as seen on the picture. DJ Sturm ( talk) 12:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The deportations and "occupational deaths" figures appear many times in the article, but I can't seem to find the number of Estonians that fought in the Germany and Red Armies. The article could use that kind of info. -- Tavrian 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are any photos available of Estonian soldiers in the Red Army? About everyday life or fighting? Oth ( talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Just making a note that according to the sources and facts provided in the article and multiple sources out there the Estonians wearing German uniform during WWII at it's peak was up to 100.000 men [9] [10]; Other sources I've come across also have given figures between 75,000-80,000. Ethnic Estonians wearing the Soviet Uniform during the war, at it's peaks was about 18.000. the estimate according to Lembit Pärn. [11].-- Termer ( talk) 04:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I recall seeing an image of some Estonian soldiers in the red army next to a T34 tank which had some slogan written in both Estonian and Russian on the turret, but I can't recall where. I have found an unrelated image from 1939 which shows Estonia making preparations to defend itself . As you can see, Estonia didn't have much to work with. [13] Martintg ( talk) 02:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Baltic nations use to position themselves mostly as victims of their larger neighbours. However, some sources tell that sometimes their role in the world history was more active. It is well known that after occupation of Czech republic the USSR (in response to British proposal) initiated triple (Anglo-Franco-Soviet) negotiations aimed to prevent further German expansion. Historians disagree about real Stalin's motives: it is unclear if he really feared Hitler expansion, or he played his own game, however, some western scholars point out that in June 1939 the Soviet, French and British negotiatiors were almost ready to sign the political anti-German alliance that could possibly prevent an outbreak of WWII. The sticky point was Estonia and Latvia. They took a strong anti-Soviet and mild pro-German stance (that is quite understandable for me, btw), however, that gave the argument to Stalin about a possibility of German attack of the Soviet territory through these two countries (that could become German allies at any moment). The historians disagree if it was a real Stalin's concern, or he just used that as an legal pretext for the intervention into Estonian and Latvian domestic affair. However, the fact is that the Estonia and Latvia appeared to be a sticky point during the triple negotiations, and, possibly, their positions contributed to the WWII outbreak.
I am not intended to do any changes in the article, that seems to be dominated by Baltic editors, but if you guys feel comfortable to include some of these facts into the article, I am ready to provide reputable academic sources and facts for that.
Looking forward to see your comments.
Best regards,--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems we have a case. Here's some sources, I found. First of all, John Hiden, professor of Modern European History at Bradford University in his "The Baltic and the outbreak of the Second World War" (1992) says:"... the Baltic countries, Estonia and Latvia in particular because of their common border with the Soviet Union held the centre stage, strategically speaking, by 1939," and:"Both Germany and the Soviet Union acted until the last moment as if they were primarily concerned with exploiting Baltic footholds against each other. Yet the impasse in the Allied-Soviet talks on the one hand and, on the other, Hitler's mounting anxiety to keep to his military timetable to attack Poland, dictated alternative strategies. The British Government in particular continued to reject the Soviet case for being able to move troops into the Baltic countries to meet an anticipated attack from Hitler's Germany." Eero Medijainen, professor of Modern History at the University of Tartu, in his "1939: possibilities and options (the viewpoint of the Baltic States)" in Ajalooline Ajakiri journal (2000) citing Hiden, agrees with him stating that it is possible that the Baltics had an impact on the outbreak of the WWII. However he says:"The balance of force in international relationships since May 1939 was best controlled by Stalin," and "In 1939, Hitler had no war designs against the Soviet Union [...] Moscow's accusations against Baltic countries to the effect that these might be used as a basis for Germany in its assault upon the Soviet Union were mainly a propaganda speech addressed to western powers and meant to motivate the Soviets' demands." He also argues that Estonian Foreign Ministery did not change its political concept in 1920-1939, not towards Germany nor to any other nation, it merely took the offer of a non-aggression pact from Germany (which Britain never offered). Still, Soviet Union was out of the question as an ally. So there's some food for thought. -- Erikupoeg ( talk) 14:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Paul, in regard to your proposal to write a section "Estonia and WWII outbreak", I think you need to look at the role Estonia played within the context of the Baltic states (including Finland which was considered a Baltic state back in the 1930's) within Stalin's and Hitler's strategic thinking. Thus I think a new separate article may be in order here. I don't believe we can treat this interesting topic within the confines of this article. Martintg ( talk) 03:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It definitely deserves a statement in the Estonian in World War II article. Something like:"The Baltic question played a major part in the British-French-Soviet negotiations of 1939, where the Soviet side argued, that Estonia might take Germany's side in a possible assault at the Soviet Union and thus become a favourable basis for attacking Leningrad." -- Erikupoeg ( talk) 11:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The idea of Estonia as a German ally was a deliberately false or simply erroneous statement presented by Molotov and the rest of the Soviet propaganda in the 1930s. However, the fact that reputable sources claim the issue had a major impact on the outbreak of WWII deserves mentioning. -- Erikupoeg ( talk) 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Erikupoeg ( talk) 08:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see any sources saying the issue had a major impact on the outbreak of WWII. What I read up there though: it is possible that the Baltics had an impact.... Anything is possible. And a possibility is not a fact but an opinionated "what if theory". --
Termer (
talk)
13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. non-aggression pacts at the time were signed by Germany not only with Estonia and Latvia but also with Denmark.--
Termer (
talk)
13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Anything according to WP:RS is fine by me. meaning as long as an opinion it is possible that the Baltics had an impact... is not getting transformed into statements like the issue had a major impact and etc. Anything saying "major" in this context is clearly owerblown. The stratedical location of Baltic states was an issue like the source above says ...held the center stage, strategically speaking-- Termer ( talk) 02:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
To my opinion, it is incorrect to say that WWII started as a result of the Nazi-Soviet joint military operation.
First, such a statement contradicts to the chronology of the events: the war started on 1 September 1939, whereas the USSR invaded Poland only on 17 September. Second, there is no consensus among historians about the degree of the Nazi-Soviet cooperation. There even no evidences that the Soviets and Germans discussed their military plans before 1 September, it is even unknown if Stalin knew about exact Hitler's plans to attack Poland.
As regards to Soviet radio transmissions directly supporting the Luftwaffe invasion of Poland, the German request for these transmissions was made on 1 September. This request was made by Hilger (German embassy official), and this had been done on 1 Sept 1939 only, during the his meeting with the Narkomindel official. This request came simultaneously with information about the German attack of Poland (АВП СССР, ф. 06, оп. 1, п. 8, д. 74, л. 20. л. 26.), so it is hard to speak about even coordination. In addition, Hilger didn't explain a real reason behind his request (according to him, such a transmission was needed for "urgent aeronautical experiments"). Of course, it would be hypocritical to state that the Soviet authorities didn't understand what these radio transmissions were intended for, however, the fact of such a transmission is insufficient to call the invasion a joint operation.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. Formally speaking, the mentioning of the USSR should be removed at all, because neither the USSR nor Poland declared a war on each other (and no other country declared a war on the USSR in Setember 1939), however, complete omission of the USSR would also be not completely correct....--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. For sources supporting the claim, see: Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No sources exist that could be more reliable is a joke at best..Again, if you insist we can take it to WP:FTN and later perhaps include in related articles as an alternative WP:UNDUE theory. Like I said, Roberts is free to have his opinions. but facts speak of something different. Open up any history book written on the subject: Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Do you know Paul what they call removing sourced and verified facts from wikipedia without reaching consensus? Nothing justifies it and sooner or later the material you have removed from this article is going to be restored. In case you think the facts might be controversial, that's fine. you should feel free to add alternative viewpoints to the existing ones according to WP:YESPOV. but once again, nothing justifies simply replacing sourced facts with alternative opinions.-- Termer ( talk) 01:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
1 сентября 1939 г.
В[ячеслав] М[ихайлович],
В 11 часов 1 сентября явился Хильгер и передал мне для Вас несколько сообщений.
1. Хильгер сообщил, что ввиду отклонения Польшей предложения Гитлера о мирном урегулировании всех вопросов при посредничестве Англии, сделанного Польше им 29 августа, Гитлер 1 сентября издал приказ войскам. Перевод приказа прилагается (see: Dokumentarische Zeitehronik 1939. Chronologische Übersicht der wichtigsten Daten und Ereignisse des Zeitgeschehens mit urkundigen Zeugnissen. Ebenhausen bei München, 1943. S. 130.. Затем Хильгер просил передать Вам, что позвонивший сегодня Шуленбургу Риббентроп чрезвычайно обрадован содержанием речи (Имеется в виду речь В. М. Молотова на сессии Верховного Совета СССР 31 августа 1939 г. См. док. 617.). Риббентроп горячо приветствует сказанное Вами и очень доволен предельной ясностью Вашей речи.
2. Сегодня, сообщил далее Хильгер, Гитлер, к которому обратился с соответствующим воззванием от имени населения глава Данцигского государства Форстер, принял Данциг в лоно германской империи. (Воззвание Форстера к населению Данцига прилагается (see см.: Dokumente der deutschen Politik. Das Werden des Reiches 1939. Band VII/2. Berlin, 1940. S. 593-594. .)
Хильгер от имени Шуленбурга просил Вашего разрешения на опубликование в германских газетах прилагаемого сообщения о приезде военного атташе в Берлин.
Он спросил также, когда вылетают наши военные, так как ввиду запрещения полетов гражданских самолетов над Германией из Берлина должен быть выслан специальный самолет в Стокгольм.
Я сказал Хильгеру, что военные вылетают 2 сентября.
4. Хильгер просил также передать Вам просьбу начальника генштаба германских военно-воздушных сил (прилагается. речь шла о просьбе, чтобы радиостанция в Минске в свободное от передачи время передавала для срочных воздухоплавательных опытов непрерывную линию с вкрапленными позывными знаками: «Рихард Вильгельм 1.0», а кроме того, во время передачи своей программы по возможности часто слово «Минск». Из резолюции В. М. Молотова на документе следует, что было дано согласие передавать только слово «Минск». АВП СССР, ф. 06, оп. 1, п. 7, д. 74.)
Павлов
В 13.00 1 сентября Хильгер сообщил, что сегодня в 5.45 начались военные действия между Польшей и Германией .
АВП СССР, ф. 06, оп. 1, п. 8, д. 74, л. 20. л. 26."
The item 4 of this document states: "Hilger asked to pass the request of the German Air forces' Chief of Staff. (the Germans wanted the radio station in Minsk, when it is idle, to start a continuous broadcast needed for urgent aeronautical experiments. This translation should contain the embedded call signs "Richard Wilhelm 1.0", and, in addition to that, to broadcast the word "Minsk" as frequent as possible. The Molotov's resolution on that document authorised broadcasting of the word "Minsk" only). On Sept 1, 13 00 Hilger reported that the hostilities between Poland and Germany started today in 5.45."
This is a primary source, so I cannot draw any conclusion from it in the article. However, since this is a talk page, let me point you attention at the fact that even on Sept 1, when the war had already started, the German didn't disclose a real purpose of the requested broadcast ("for aeronautical experiments"). Of course, the real destination of this broadcast was a polychinelle's secret, however, such a collaboration is unusual between real allies...--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, facts can't be more straight forward than that: the two zones of conquest for Germany and Soviet Russia were arranged twice in Moscow prior to the invasion of Poland. If this is not a joint operation like the sources said , I don't know what is. The fact has been removed from the article. Like I said, sooner or later it's going to be restored. And again, alternative takes are always welcome as long as those stay side by side with opposing viewpoints.-- Termer ( talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
When did this collaboration start? August 23 1939! [17] I don't mind repeating the facts according to the sources:. The generals of the two invading armies went over the details of the prearranged line that would mark the two zones of conquest for Germany and Soviet Russia, subsequently to be rearranged one more time in Moscow. [18]. "the prearranged line" was agreed in Moscow on August 23 1939: see The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939 Secret Additional Protocol. Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. [19].-- Termer ( talk) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"There was no specific agreement or intention on 23 August to partition Poland" by Roberts is in conflict with majority of sources written on the subject. And again, you have no case to have "the opposite point of view removed", the only thing that would have been justified, adding the opposite interpretation to the existing one. Also, in order to have such interpretation like Roberts included in any articles, it needs to be shown that it's not a single opinion.-- Termer ( talk) 06:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do you Paul ignore what the sources say Paul? Contrary your ideas the books written on the subject say exact opposite. Lets take one of the books I left for you to study above: Crucible of Power By Howard Jones, p. 157. On August 23, 1939 Gemany and Soviet Union shocked the world by announcing a nonaggression pact in Moscow that achived the inconceivable: An alliance between fascists and Communits...the act contained a secret protocol...the Soviet Union would claim eastern Poland, Finland, Bessarabia, and the two Baltic states. Germany was free to attack western Poland and then focus on France and Britain.-- Termer ( talk) 02:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The "The Beginning of World War" appeared to contain the information that repeated twice: first time in a context of WWII outbreak, and the second time when the Soviet invasion of Poland is mentioned:
First time: "World War II began with the
invasion and subsequent partition of an important regional ally of Estonia —
Poland, by
Germany. Although some coordination existed between Germany and the
USSR early the war,
[1] the Soviet Union communicated to Nazi Germany its decision to launch its own invasion seven days after Germany's invasion later, as a result, in part, of the unforeseen rapidity of the Polish military collapse.
[2] "
And again:"On
September 17, the
Soviet Union invaded its part of Poland under the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's secret protocol
[20]. During this invasion, a close coordination of German and Soviet military activity took place.
[3]
[4]"
That seems redundant in the article about Estonia. I propose to remove one of these fragments. In addition, it is not completely correct: Germany invaded Poland alone, and that event marked a start of WWII. However, partition of Poland was done by Germany and the USSR together.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
14:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Dublicated info should be cleaned up of curce. Other than that, on the collaboration between Germany and the USSR, unfortunately Wikipedia is not based on editorial opinions but on WP:RS and WP:verify. And in that respect the collaboration between USSR and Nazi Germany started on August 23. 1939 when the Soviet-Nazi alliance was made in Moscow. Just left a source and a citation up there [21]. Also, in case anybody has missed such a book like Conflict, catastrophe and continuity By Frank Biess, Mark Roseman, Hanna Schissler; Chapter 8 Nazi-Soviet Collaboration 1939-1941. In total Google books gives 115 returns on the subject Soviet-Nazi collaboration.-- Termer ( talk) 03:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is some interesting reading on the question, why it took USSR 17 days to join Germany in the war that was agreed on in Moscow on August 23. The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler By Eugene Davidson p.396 Stalin had cautiously waited until mid-September before ordering his troops into Poland. Despite German pressure to begin the invasion promptly, he had no intention of finding the Soviet Union fighting France and Britain and waited until their nonintervention was certain before giving orders to cross the frontier.-- Termer ( talk) 03:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
All this is getting into semantics and we should put an end to this meaningless discussion. The facts are straight forward. How Poland was to be divided between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union was agreed on August 23. 1939. And that was the line where the Soviet and Nazi troops met one month later and had their joint parade on Sep. 22, 1939 to celebrate the successful invasion, and call it "joint" or not, the facts speak for themselves.-- Termer ( talk) 04:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
An update to this discussion: no matter if it was a joint operation or not, a related fact says that The parliament of the pan-European security body passed a resolution equating the roles of the USSR and Nazi Germany in starting World War II -- Termer ( talk) 05:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
References
The joint invasion of Poland was celebrated with a parade by the Wehrmacht and the Red Army in Brest Litovsk
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); line feed character in |quote=
at position 79 (
help)
The generals of the two invading armies went over the details of the prearranged line that would mark the two zones of conquest for Germany and Soviet Russia, subsequently to be rearranged one more time in Moscow. The military parade that followd was recorded by nazi cameras and celebrated in the German newsreel: German and Soviet generals cheek by jowl n military homage to each other's armies and victories.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
I am wondering who introduced Estonian flag into the Belligerent sections? Wasn't Estonia neutral during WWII?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 01:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally have some doubts if such article should have an infobox. Most articles about general WW II histories of specific countries don't seem to use it.-- Staberinde ( talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
After Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Finland sided with Germany in the Continuation War. On July 3, Stalin made his public statement over the radio calling for a scorched earth policy in the areas to be abandoned. In North Estonia, the Soviet destruction battalions had the greatest impact, being the last Baltic territory captured from the Soviets. Pro-independence Forest Brothers, numbering about 50,000, attacked the forces of the NKVD and the 8th Army (Major General Ljubovtsev), killing 4,800 and capturing 14,000.
After the German 18th Army crossed the Estonian southern border on July 7–9, the Forest Brothers organized themselves into bigger units. They took on the Red Army units and Extermination Battalions in Võrumaa at Antsla on July 5, 1941. The next day a larger offensive happened in Vasteliina where the Forest Brothers prevented Russian destruction of the town and trapped the Russians, the extermination battalion chiefs and local communist administrators. On July 7 the Forest Brothers were able to hoist the Estonian flag in Vasteliina. Võru was subsequently liberated and by the time the German army arrived the blue-black-white flags were already at full mast and the Forest Brothers had organised into Omakaitse – self defense units.[60]
The battle of Tartu lasted for two weeks, and destroyed a large part of the city. In the fires of 12 and 13 July, the headquarters of the Estonian Defence League, the campus of the Faculty of Veterinary and Agriculture of the University of Tartu and more university buildings were burnt down. Several libraries of the University and 135 major private libraries were destroyed, totalling at 465,000 books, many archive materials and 2,500 pieces of art lost. Among them were the libraries of Aino and Gustav Suits and Aurora and Johannes Semper.[61]
Under the leadership of Friedrich Kurg, the Forest Brothers drove out the Soviets from Tartu, driving the Soviet troops behind the Pärnu River – the Emajõgi line and securing South Estonia under Estonian control by July 10.[62] The NKVD murdered 193 people in Tartu Prison on their retreat on July 8.
Soviet Extermination Battalions wrought havoc on the countryside while combating the national partisans. Formed in Estonia on June 27, 1941 in face of the advancing German Army. Ostensibly to fight against saboteurs and traitors, they were given wide mandate by the Soviet authorities to summarily execute any suspicious person. Thousands of people including a large proportion of women and children were killed, while dozens of villages, schools and public buildings were burned to the ground. A school boy Tullio Lindsaar had all bones in his hands broken then was bayoneted for hoisting the Estonian tri-colour. Mauricius Parts, son of the Estonian War of Independence hero Karl Parts, was doused in acid. In August 1941, all residents of the village Viru-Kabala were killed including a two-year old child and a six-day old infant. A partisan war broke out in response to the atrocities of the destruction battalions, with tens of thousands of men forming the Forest Brothers to protect the local population from these battalions.[63]
Etc.-- SergeiXXX ( talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
In case it reads like a POV for you, you must be aware of an alternative POV? Please do not hesitate to dig up the sources that represent the POV you're talking about and it can be added to the article.-- Termer ( talk) 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I had to revert the undiscussed edits by Igny. An entire section + some sourced facts were removed for some reason? also what was this all about [22] "According to Estonian point of view". What is this "Estonian POV" exactly, what kind of source speaks about it? The same goes for [23] "partially supporting Estonia's position"? Who has said Estonia's position is supported and even better "partially"? I mean, if you're talking about "Estonia's position" first that comes to my mind is geography. In the context was it suppose to be a position, an opinion of somebody from Estonia? As I can't imagine an entire country has the same opinion about something. In case there is where is the source that says so?-- Termer ( talk) 07:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
References
The article states:
References
kaasik
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
I've requested quotation for this material to see what's contained in the the Report. Absolute War by Chris Bellamy ( bio) describes the situation differently, in this para, starting with the highlighted text. I hope to be able to reconcile these interpretations. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
It isn't clear what the issue is, the Baltic Defence Review article "Tartu in the 1941 Summer War" states on the first page:
and
I'm sure the Estonian International Commission report will corroborate, but I can provide a quote from it as requested. Will have to wait until the weekend though. I can only see a snippet view of Chris Bellamy's book with the passage "began to retreat through northern Latvia and southern Estonia to a new defence line", can you provide a fuller quote? Thanks. -- Nug ( talk) 01:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link) on Forest Brothers, the 8th Army, 4,800 Soviet troops killed and 14,000 captured, etc? --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Nug reverted the edits made by me (and 89.16.227.198) and wrote: "Undo some recent edits due to unreliable sourcing, for example, books by Richard Landwehr were previously determined to be unreliable. Please discuss on talk first." the article still cites landwehr's books, i just fixed the links by adding the pages and the author, while the sources for the text that i added (Neil Taylor (2020). Estonia: A Modern History. p. 103.; M. Laar. Estonia in World War II (2005). p. 30; Berit-Helena Lamp (2009-01-23). "Lahkus Eesti lipu heiskaja Evald Aruvald". Postimees. Retrieved 2024-01-14.) seem to be reliable, so it would be more correct not to revert the edits, but to remove the sentences that cite landwehr from the article - Opostylov ( talk), 23 January 2024 (UTC)
kaasik
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
A fact from Estonia in World War II appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
"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)
In this article it says "World War II losses in Estonia, estimated at around 25%". In the article World War II casualties however, the deaths as % of 1939 population are shown 3.62% of population. This does not mention any military deaths, just as noone died. They are instead, counted for the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany. The "owner" of this article doesn't let anyone to change things on that page and reverts all edits, that add information to the tables. Anyone, who knows more about WW2 could try to change something in that article.
Also, a suggestion for this article. Could there be summarized tables for the number of mobilised, deported, emigrees and the number of deaths? Right now it's like searching a needle in a haystack when searching for numbers. H2ppyme ( talk) 11:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The pharse: During the first Soviet occupation of 1940-41 about 500 Jews were deported to Siberia. is completely misleading. Probably, those jews were the luckiest jews in Estonia. My mother's stepfather was a private in the Polish Army. After Soviet occupation of westen Bielorussia he was deported to Ural and served in auxilliary battalion until 1944. Then he was sent to Eastern Front, wounded and finished the War in Germany. Upon returning home he found his whole family to be killed by Nazies. I personally knew several other jews who survived exclusivelly because they were deported to Ural. Therefore, I propose to remove this phrase or to provide a proper commentary.
Best regards, --
Paul Siebert (
talk)
23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The 500 Jews that were deported to Siberia in 1940 along with other "enemies of the Soviet people", because they were either rich or held significant positions in the society most likely were not "the luckiest". The luckiest back then I'd bet were the few that made it to the West and perhaps to certain extent the ones that had communist sympathies and evacuated together with the Soviets before the Nazis arrived in 1941. The rest out of total 2000 Estonian Jews about 1000 got trapped and were killed by the Nazis. --
Termer (
talk)
00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, If those 500 were not deported, the amount of Jews killed by Nazis would be 1,500. is a speculation and not any different from if I'd say If those 500 were not deported, they would have escaped to Sweden.
And there are ethnic Russians arrested by NKVD listed in the article. Regarding Germans than their faith should be clear too. No Germans were arrested by NKVD because Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies at that point and all the Germans were free to leave to Germany. So the article should be pretty clear about the facts, so sorry that you find the part misleading. But feel free to clarify if you think it's necessary to point out that they were deported not because they were Jews but because the Soviet regime repressed everybody that have had either some economical or political significance in the society.--
Termer (
talk)
04:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not inclined to trust accounts of eyewitness, because, although factually correct, they frequently create a wrong general picture. I agree that it would be a fundamental mistake to project family history to the world history. I just gave it as an example that, to my opinion, fits into the more general picture.
Let's stick to sources. Wheatcroft devoted a separate article to the comparison of Stalin's and Hitler's policy. He analyzed Hitler and Stalin using the same scientific approach, therefore, his conclusion seem to be highly reliable. He concludes:
"The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans. These are clearly much lower figures than those for whom Hitler's regime was responsible."Weathcroft The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings 1930-45 Author(s): Stephen Wheatcroft Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353
— page 1334.
Of course, millions of Soviet people who died as a result of famines etc. are not included into these figure. However, let me point out that the latter is hardly relevant to Estonia.
Wheatcroft clearly distinguish "between purposive killing and deaths from criminal neglect and irresponsibility", so his overall conclusion is.
"The nature of Soviet repression and mass killing was clearly far more complex than normally assumed. Mass purposive killings in terms of executions were probably in the order of one million and probably as large as the total number of recorded deaths in the Gulag. In this narrowest category of purposefully caused deaths, the situation is exactly the opposite to that generally accepted. Hitler caused the murder of at least 5 million innocent people largely, it would appear, because he did not like Jews and communists. Stalin by contrast can be charged with causing the purposive death of something in the order of a million people. Furthermore the purposive deaths caused by Hitler fit more closely into the category of 'murder', while those caused by Stalin fit more closely the category of 'execution'. Stalin undoubtedly caused many innocent people to be executed, but it seems likely that he thought many of them guilty of crimes against the state and felt that the execution of others would act as a deterent to the guilty. He signed the papers and insisted on documentation. Hitler, by contrast, wanted to be rid of the Jews and communists simply because they were Jews and communists. He was not concerned about making any pretence at legality. He was careful not to sign anything on this matter and was equally insistent on no documentation.
It is only when we get into the broader categories of causing death by criminal neglect and ruthlessness that Stalin probably exceeds Hitler, but here we have to remember that the USSR was much larger than Germany and that death rates in the best of times had always been significantly higher in Russia than in Germany.
The Gulag was neither as large nor as deadly as it is often presented, it was not a death camp, although in cases of general food shortage (1932-33 and 1942-43) it would suffer significantly more than the population at large. There were not 12 million deaths in the camps as suggested by Maier; and it seems highly unlikely that there were as many as 7 million deaths between 1935 and 1941 as claimed by Conquest citing Mikoyan's son. With a maximum number of inmates of 1.5 million in 1941 the Gulag was nevertheless of demographic significance and more than twenty times as large as the prewar Nazi concentration camp system at its peak following Kristallnacht. But all the same, twenty times as large as pre-war Nazi concentration camps does not make anything like Auschwitz"
— ibid
I fully realise that people from the Baltic countries had much more problems with Stalin than with Hitler, however, to my opinion, it is necessary to keep all presented above in mind.
Best regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I generally agree with Paul that the statement is disturbing in its vagueness. First of all, an unknown proportion of the Jews were taken to Siberia as a geographic region. If they were taken to GULAG, it should say so. The reader can get the rest from the GULAG article. -- Erikupoeg ( talk) 16:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The image Image:German Soviet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
OK FeelSunny, this has gone a bit too far! Please stop inserting your personal commentaries into this article [1] [2] [3] [4]. Please note that "half and half" and/or 50/50 is an expression in English and the citation in the article is a figurative speech that doesn't have anything to do with any countries.-- Termer ( talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think I want this discussion. If a "majority of editors" thinks like this, have it as you like it. FeelSunny ( talk) 17:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If the first sentence says "The fate of Estonia in World War II was decided by the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact", it is not true. MRP only pushed things to move, but did not completely decide Estonia's fate, because most of Estonian people did not want to belong into Soviet Union and gave Soviets heavy resistance in 1941-1945. I think that battles in 1944 decided Estonia's fate much more than Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Two men in Moscow had no right to decide over fate of other states and they could not prohibit resistance of Estonian people. DJ Sturm ( talk) 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
But if Estonia had not knuckle under Soviets in 1939 or 1940 and fight against them, as Finland did, then it's very possible Estonia would stood free. DJ Sturm ( talk) 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering, the image [6] added by DJ Sturm, it says "Soldiers with Tiger I during the Battle of Narva", but nothing in the image description on Commons [7] connects it with the place and the time. It says "Russland, Panzer VI (Tiger I), Soldaten im Schnee", meaning "Russia, Panzer VI (Tiger I), Soldiers in Snow". And the additional description -Extra information: "Sowjetunion.- Panzer VI "Tiger I" auf Straße, Infanterie-Kolonne mit weißen Tarnanzügen auf dem Marsch auf verschneiter Straße; Eins Kp Lw zbV". Meaning "Soviet Union. - Panzer VI "Tiger I" on the street, Infantry platoon wearing white camouflage suits march on the snowy road.".. So what has that to do with the Battle of Narva? In case such a connection can't be established that the image has anything to do with Estonia in WW II, the pic should be removed.-- Termer ( talk) 18:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This photo is taken in 1944, and as we can see there snow and Tiger I, it must be near to Narva. In Finland no Tigers were used and in south of "Heeresgruppe Nord" front, there is no so much snow at winter as seen on the picture. DJ Sturm ( talk) 12:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The deportations and "occupational deaths" figures appear many times in the article, but I can't seem to find the number of Estonians that fought in the Germany and Red Armies. The article could use that kind of info. -- Tavrian 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are any photos available of Estonian soldiers in the Red Army? About everyday life or fighting? Oth ( talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Just making a note that according to the sources and facts provided in the article and multiple sources out there the Estonians wearing German uniform during WWII at it's peak was up to 100.000 men [9] [10]; Other sources I've come across also have given figures between 75,000-80,000. Ethnic Estonians wearing the Soviet Uniform during the war, at it's peaks was about 18.000. the estimate according to Lembit Pärn. [11].-- Termer ( talk) 04:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I recall seeing an image of some Estonian soldiers in the red army next to a T34 tank which had some slogan written in both Estonian and Russian on the turret, but I can't recall where. I have found an unrelated image from 1939 which shows Estonia making preparations to defend itself . As you can see, Estonia didn't have much to work with. [13] Martintg ( talk) 02:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Baltic nations use to position themselves mostly as victims of their larger neighbours. However, some sources tell that sometimes their role in the world history was more active. It is well known that after occupation of Czech republic the USSR (in response to British proposal) initiated triple (Anglo-Franco-Soviet) negotiations aimed to prevent further German expansion. Historians disagree about real Stalin's motives: it is unclear if he really feared Hitler expansion, or he played his own game, however, some western scholars point out that in June 1939 the Soviet, French and British negotiatiors were almost ready to sign the political anti-German alliance that could possibly prevent an outbreak of WWII. The sticky point was Estonia and Latvia. They took a strong anti-Soviet and mild pro-German stance (that is quite understandable for me, btw), however, that gave the argument to Stalin about a possibility of German attack of the Soviet territory through these two countries (that could become German allies at any moment). The historians disagree if it was a real Stalin's concern, or he just used that as an legal pretext for the intervention into Estonian and Latvian domestic affair. However, the fact is that the Estonia and Latvia appeared to be a sticky point during the triple negotiations, and, possibly, their positions contributed to the WWII outbreak.
I am not intended to do any changes in the article, that seems to be dominated by Baltic editors, but if you guys feel comfortable to include some of these facts into the article, I am ready to provide reputable academic sources and facts for that.
Looking forward to see your comments.
Best regards,--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems we have a case. Here's some sources, I found. First of all, John Hiden, professor of Modern European History at Bradford University in his "The Baltic and the outbreak of the Second World War" (1992) says:"... the Baltic countries, Estonia and Latvia in particular because of their common border with the Soviet Union held the centre stage, strategically speaking, by 1939," and:"Both Germany and the Soviet Union acted until the last moment as if they were primarily concerned with exploiting Baltic footholds against each other. Yet the impasse in the Allied-Soviet talks on the one hand and, on the other, Hitler's mounting anxiety to keep to his military timetable to attack Poland, dictated alternative strategies. The British Government in particular continued to reject the Soviet case for being able to move troops into the Baltic countries to meet an anticipated attack from Hitler's Germany." Eero Medijainen, professor of Modern History at the University of Tartu, in his "1939: possibilities and options (the viewpoint of the Baltic States)" in Ajalooline Ajakiri journal (2000) citing Hiden, agrees with him stating that it is possible that the Baltics had an impact on the outbreak of the WWII. However he says:"The balance of force in international relationships since May 1939 was best controlled by Stalin," and "In 1939, Hitler had no war designs against the Soviet Union [...] Moscow's accusations against Baltic countries to the effect that these might be used as a basis for Germany in its assault upon the Soviet Union were mainly a propaganda speech addressed to western powers and meant to motivate the Soviets' demands." He also argues that Estonian Foreign Ministery did not change its political concept in 1920-1939, not towards Germany nor to any other nation, it merely took the offer of a non-aggression pact from Germany (which Britain never offered). Still, Soviet Union was out of the question as an ally. So there's some food for thought. -- Erikupoeg ( talk) 14:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Paul, in regard to your proposal to write a section "Estonia and WWII outbreak", I think you need to look at the role Estonia played within the context of the Baltic states (including Finland which was considered a Baltic state back in the 1930's) within Stalin's and Hitler's strategic thinking. Thus I think a new separate article may be in order here. I don't believe we can treat this interesting topic within the confines of this article. Martintg ( talk) 03:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It definitely deserves a statement in the Estonian in World War II article. Something like:"The Baltic question played a major part in the British-French-Soviet negotiations of 1939, where the Soviet side argued, that Estonia might take Germany's side in a possible assault at the Soviet Union and thus become a favourable basis for attacking Leningrad." -- Erikupoeg ( talk) 11:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The idea of Estonia as a German ally was a deliberately false or simply erroneous statement presented by Molotov and the rest of the Soviet propaganda in the 1930s. However, the fact that reputable sources claim the issue had a major impact on the outbreak of WWII deserves mentioning. -- Erikupoeg ( talk) 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Erikupoeg ( talk) 08:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see any sources saying the issue had a major impact on the outbreak of WWII. What I read up there though: it is possible that the Baltics had an impact.... Anything is possible. And a possibility is not a fact but an opinionated "what if theory". --
Termer (
talk)
13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. non-aggression pacts at the time were signed by Germany not only with Estonia and Latvia but also with Denmark.--
Termer (
talk)
13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Anything according to WP:RS is fine by me. meaning as long as an opinion it is possible that the Baltics had an impact... is not getting transformed into statements like the issue had a major impact and etc. Anything saying "major" in this context is clearly owerblown. The stratedical location of Baltic states was an issue like the source above says ...held the center stage, strategically speaking-- Termer ( talk) 02:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
To my opinion, it is incorrect to say that WWII started as a result of the Nazi-Soviet joint military operation.
First, such a statement contradicts to the chronology of the events: the war started on 1 September 1939, whereas the USSR invaded Poland only on 17 September. Second, there is no consensus among historians about the degree of the Nazi-Soviet cooperation. There even no evidences that the Soviets and Germans discussed their military plans before 1 September, it is even unknown if Stalin knew about exact Hitler's plans to attack Poland.
As regards to Soviet radio transmissions directly supporting the Luftwaffe invasion of Poland, the German request for these transmissions was made on 1 September. This request was made by Hilger (German embassy official), and this had been done on 1 Sept 1939 only, during the his meeting with the Narkomindel official. This request came simultaneously with information about the German attack of Poland (АВП СССР, ф. 06, оп. 1, п. 8, д. 74, л. 20. л. 26.), so it is hard to speak about even coordination. In addition, Hilger didn't explain a real reason behind his request (according to him, such a transmission was needed for "urgent aeronautical experiments"). Of course, it would be hypocritical to state that the Soviet authorities didn't understand what these radio transmissions were intended for, however, the fact of such a transmission is insufficient to call the invasion a joint operation.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. Formally speaking, the mentioning of the USSR should be removed at all, because neither the USSR nor Poland declared a war on each other (and no other country declared a war on the USSR in Setember 1939), however, complete omission of the USSR would also be not completely correct....--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. For sources supporting the claim, see: Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No sources exist that could be more reliable is a joke at best..Again, if you insist we can take it to WP:FTN and later perhaps include in related articles as an alternative WP:UNDUE theory. Like I said, Roberts is free to have his opinions. but facts speak of something different. Open up any history book written on the subject: Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Do you know Paul what they call removing sourced and verified facts from wikipedia without reaching consensus? Nothing justifies it and sooner or later the material you have removed from this article is going to be restored. In case you think the facts might be controversial, that's fine. you should feel free to add alternative viewpoints to the existing ones according to WP:YESPOV. but once again, nothing justifies simply replacing sourced facts with alternative opinions.-- Termer ( talk) 01:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
1 сентября 1939 г.
В[ячеслав] М[ихайлович],
В 11 часов 1 сентября явился Хильгер и передал мне для Вас несколько сообщений.
1. Хильгер сообщил, что ввиду отклонения Польшей предложения Гитлера о мирном урегулировании всех вопросов при посредничестве Англии, сделанного Польше им 29 августа, Гитлер 1 сентября издал приказ войскам. Перевод приказа прилагается (see: Dokumentarische Zeitehronik 1939. Chronologische Übersicht der wichtigsten Daten und Ereignisse des Zeitgeschehens mit urkundigen Zeugnissen. Ebenhausen bei München, 1943. S. 130.. Затем Хильгер просил передать Вам, что позвонивший сегодня Шуленбургу Риббентроп чрезвычайно обрадован содержанием речи (Имеется в виду речь В. М. Молотова на сессии Верховного Совета СССР 31 августа 1939 г. См. док. 617.). Риббентроп горячо приветствует сказанное Вами и очень доволен предельной ясностью Вашей речи.
2. Сегодня, сообщил далее Хильгер, Гитлер, к которому обратился с соответствующим воззванием от имени населения глава Данцигского государства Форстер, принял Данциг в лоно германской империи. (Воззвание Форстера к населению Данцига прилагается (see см.: Dokumente der deutschen Politik. Das Werden des Reiches 1939. Band VII/2. Berlin, 1940. S. 593-594. .)
Хильгер от имени Шуленбурга просил Вашего разрешения на опубликование в германских газетах прилагаемого сообщения о приезде военного атташе в Берлин.
Он спросил также, когда вылетают наши военные, так как ввиду запрещения полетов гражданских самолетов над Германией из Берлина должен быть выслан специальный самолет в Стокгольм.
Я сказал Хильгеру, что военные вылетают 2 сентября.
4. Хильгер просил также передать Вам просьбу начальника генштаба германских военно-воздушных сил (прилагается. речь шла о просьбе, чтобы радиостанция в Минске в свободное от передачи время передавала для срочных воздухоплавательных опытов непрерывную линию с вкрапленными позывными знаками: «Рихард Вильгельм 1.0», а кроме того, во время передачи своей программы по возможности часто слово «Минск». Из резолюции В. М. Молотова на документе следует, что было дано согласие передавать только слово «Минск». АВП СССР, ф. 06, оп. 1, п. 7, д. 74.)
Павлов
В 13.00 1 сентября Хильгер сообщил, что сегодня в 5.45 начались военные действия между Польшей и Германией .
АВП СССР, ф. 06, оп. 1, п. 8, д. 74, л. 20. л. 26."
The item 4 of this document states: "Hilger asked to pass the request of the German Air forces' Chief of Staff. (the Germans wanted the radio station in Minsk, when it is idle, to start a continuous broadcast needed for urgent aeronautical experiments. This translation should contain the embedded call signs "Richard Wilhelm 1.0", and, in addition to that, to broadcast the word "Minsk" as frequent as possible. The Molotov's resolution on that document authorised broadcasting of the word "Minsk" only). On Sept 1, 13 00 Hilger reported that the hostilities between Poland and Germany started today in 5.45."
This is a primary source, so I cannot draw any conclusion from it in the article. However, since this is a talk page, let me point you attention at the fact that even on Sept 1, when the war had already started, the German didn't disclose a real purpose of the requested broadcast ("for aeronautical experiments"). Of course, the real destination of this broadcast was a polychinelle's secret, however, such a collaboration is unusual between real allies...--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, facts can't be more straight forward than that: the two zones of conquest for Germany and Soviet Russia were arranged twice in Moscow prior to the invasion of Poland. If this is not a joint operation like the sources said , I don't know what is. The fact has been removed from the article. Like I said, sooner or later it's going to be restored. And again, alternative takes are always welcome as long as those stay side by side with opposing viewpoints.-- Termer ( talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
When did this collaboration start? August 23 1939! [17] I don't mind repeating the facts according to the sources:. The generals of the two invading armies went over the details of the prearranged line that would mark the two zones of conquest for Germany and Soviet Russia, subsequently to be rearranged one more time in Moscow. [18]. "the prearranged line" was agreed in Moscow on August 23 1939: see The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939 Secret Additional Protocol. Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. [19].-- Termer ( talk) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"There was no specific agreement or intention on 23 August to partition Poland" by Roberts is in conflict with majority of sources written on the subject. And again, you have no case to have "the opposite point of view removed", the only thing that would have been justified, adding the opposite interpretation to the existing one. Also, in order to have such interpretation like Roberts included in any articles, it needs to be shown that it's not a single opinion.-- Termer ( talk) 06:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do you Paul ignore what the sources say Paul? Contrary your ideas the books written on the subject say exact opposite. Lets take one of the books I left for you to study above: Crucible of Power By Howard Jones, p. 157. On August 23, 1939 Gemany and Soviet Union shocked the world by announcing a nonaggression pact in Moscow that achived the inconceivable: An alliance between fascists and Communits...the act contained a secret protocol...the Soviet Union would claim eastern Poland, Finland, Bessarabia, and the two Baltic states. Germany was free to attack western Poland and then focus on France and Britain.-- Termer ( talk) 02:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The "The Beginning of World War" appeared to contain the information that repeated twice: first time in a context of WWII outbreak, and the second time when the Soviet invasion of Poland is mentioned:
First time: "World War II began with the
invasion and subsequent partition of an important regional ally of Estonia —
Poland, by
Germany. Although some coordination existed between Germany and the
USSR early the war,
[1] the Soviet Union communicated to Nazi Germany its decision to launch its own invasion seven days after Germany's invasion later, as a result, in part, of the unforeseen rapidity of the Polish military collapse.
[2] "
And again:"On
September 17, the
Soviet Union invaded its part of Poland under the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's secret protocol
[20]. During this invasion, a close coordination of German and Soviet military activity took place.
[3]
[4]"
That seems redundant in the article about Estonia. I propose to remove one of these fragments. In addition, it is not completely correct: Germany invaded Poland alone, and that event marked a start of WWII. However, partition of Poland was done by Germany and the USSR together.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
14:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Dublicated info should be cleaned up of curce. Other than that, on the collaboration between Germany and the USSR, unfortunately Wikipedia is not based on editorial opinions but on WP:RS and WP:verify. And in that respect the collaboration between USSR and Nazi Germany started on August 23. 1939 when the Soviet-Nazi alliance was made in Moscow. Just left a source and a citation up there [21]. Also, in case anybody has missed such a book like Conflict, catastrophe and continuity By Frank Biess, Mark Roseman, Hanna Schissler; Chapter 8 Nazi-Soviet Collaboration 1939-1941. In total Google books gives 115 returns on the subject Soviet-Nazi collaboration.-- Termer ( talk) 03:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is some interesting reading on the question, why it took USSR 17 days to join Germany in the war that was agreed on in Moscow on August 23. The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler By Eugene Davidson p.396 Stalin had cautiously waited until mid-September before ordering his troops into Poland. Despite German pressure to begin the invasion promptly, he had no intention of finding the Soviet Union fighting France and Britain and waited until their nonintervention was certain before giving orders to cross the frontier.-- Termer ( talk) 03:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
All this is getting into semantics and we should put an end to this meaningless discussion. The facts are straight forward. How Poland was to be divided between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union was agreed on August 23. 1939. And that was the line where the Soviet and Nazi troops met one month later and had their joint parade on Sep. 22, 1939 to celebrate the successful invasion, and call it "joint" or not, the facts speak for themselves.-- Termer ( talk) 04:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
An update to this discussion: no matter if it was a joint operation or not, a related fact says that The parliament of the pan-European security body passed a resolution equating the roles of the USSR and Nazi Germany in starting World War II -- Termer ( talk) 05:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
References
The joint invasion of Poland was celebrated with a parade by the Wehrmacht and the Red Army in Brest Litovsk
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); line feed character in |quote=
at position 79 (
help)
The generals of the two invading armies went over the details of the prearranged line that would mark the two zones of conquest for Germany and Soviet Russia, subsequently to be rearranged one more time in Moscow. The military parade that followd was recorded by nazi cameras and celebrated in the German newsreel: German and Soviet generals cheek by jowl n military homage to each other's armies and victories.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
I am wondering who introduced Estonian flag into the Belligerent sections? Wasn't Estonia neutral during WWII?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 01:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally have some doubts if such article should have an infobox. Most articles about general WW II histories of specific countries don't seem to use it.-- Staberinde ( talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
After Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Finland sided with Germany in the Continuation War. On July 3, Stalin made his public statement over the radio calling for a scorched earth policy in the areas to be abandoned. In North Estonia, the Soviet destruction battalions had the greatest impact, being the last Baltic territory captured from the Soviets. Pro-independence Forest Brothers, numbering about 50,000, attacked the forces of the NKVD and the 8th Army (Major General Ljubovtsev), killing 4,800 and capturing 14,000.
After the German 18th Army crossed the Estonian southern border on July 7–9, the Forest Brothers organized themselves into bigger units. They took on the Red Army units and Extermination Battalions in Võrumaa at Antsla on July 5, 1941. The next day a larger offensive happened in Vasteliina where the Forest Brothers prevented Russian destruction of the town and trapped the Russians, the extermination battalion chiefs and local communist administrators. On July 7 the Forest Brothers were able to hoist the Estonian flag in Vasteliina. Võru was subsequently liberated and by the time the German army arrived the blue-black-white flags were already at full mast and the Forest Brothers had organised into Omakaitse – self defense units.[60]
The battle of Tartu lasted for two weeks, and destroyed a large part of the city. In the fires of 12 and 13 July, the headquarters of the Estonian Defence League, the campus of the Faculty of Veterinary and Agriculture of the University of Tartu and more university buildings were burnt down. Several libraries of the University and 135 major private libraries were destroyed, totalling at 465,000 books, many archive materials and 2,500 pieces of art lost. Among them were the libraries of Aino and Gustav Suits and Aurora and Johannes Semper.[61]
Under the leadership of Friedrich Kurg, the Forest Brothers drove out the Soviets from Tartu, driving the Soviet troops behind the Pärnu River – the Emajõgi line and securing South Estonia under Estonian control by July 10.[62] The NKVD murdered 193 people in Tartu Prison on their retreat on July 8.
Soviet Extermination Battalions wrought havoc on the countryside while combating the national partisans. Formed in Estonia on June 27, 1941 in face of the advancing German Army. Ostensibly to fight against saboteurs and traitors, they were given wide mandate by the Soviet authorities to summarily execute any suspicious person. Thousands of people including a large proportion of women and children were killed, while dozens of villages, schools and public buildings were burned to the ground. A school boy Tullio Lindsaar had all bones in his hands broken then was bayoneted for hoisting the Estonian tri-colour. Mauricius Parts, son of the Estonian War of Independence hero Karl Parts, was doused in acid. In August 1941, all residents of the village Viru-Kabala were killed including a two-year old child and a six-day old infant. A partisan war broke out in response to the atrocities of the destruction battalions, with tens of thousands of men forming the Forest Brothers to protect the local population from these battalions.[63]
Etc.-- SergeiXXX ( talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
In case it reads like a POV for you, you must be aware of an alternative POV? Please do not hesitate to dig up the sources that represent the POV you're talking about and it can be added to the article.-- Termer ( talk) 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I had to revert the undiscussed edits by Igny. An entire section + some sourced facts were removed for some reason? also what was this all about [22] "According to Estonian point of view". What is this "Estonian POV" exactly, what kind of source speaks about it? The same goes for [23] "partially supporting Estonia's position"? Who has said Estonia's position is supported and even better "partially"? I mean, if you're talking about "Estonia's position" first that comes to my mind is geography. In the context was it suppose to be a position, an opinion of somebody from Estonia? As I can't imagine an entire country has the same opinion about something. In case there is where is the source that says so?-- Termer ( talk) 07:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
References
The article states:
References
kaasik
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
I've requested quotation for this material to see what's contained in the the Report. Absolute War by Chris Bellamy ( bio) describes the situation differently, in this para, starting with the highlighted text. I hope to be able to reconcile these interpretations. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
It isn't clear what the issue is, the Baltic Defence Review article "Tartu in the 1941 Summer War" states on the first page:
and
I'm sure the Estonian International Commission report will corroborate, but I can provide a quote from it as requested. Will have to wait until the weekend though. I can only see a snippet view of Chris Bellamy's book with the passage "began to retreat through northern Latvia and southern Estonia to a new defence line", can you provide a fuller quote? Thanks. -- Nug ( talk) 01:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link) on Forest Brothers, the 8th Army, 4,800 Soviet troops killed and 14,000 captured, etc? --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Nug reverted the edits made by me (and 89.16.227.198) and wrote: "Undo some recent edits due to unreliable sourcing, for example, books by Richard Landwehr were previously determined to be unreliable. Please discuss on talk first." the article still cites landwehr's books, i just fixed the links by adding the pages and the author, while the sources for the text that i added (Neil Taylor (2020). Estonia: A Modern History. p. 103.; M. Laar. Estonia in World War II (2005). p. 30; Berit-Helena Lamp (2009-01-23). "Lahkus Eesti lipu heiskaja Evald Aruvald". Postimees. Retrieved 2024-01-14.) seem to be reliable, so it would be more correct not to revert the edits, but to remove the sentences that cite landwehr from the article - Opostylov ( talk), 23 January 2024 (UTC)
kaasik
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)