![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Source [2] clearly mentions that monument "showed a soldier in a German uniform with a Waffen-SS (combat SS) unit emblem". But, since source [1] mentions that "The monument... depicts a soldier in a German infantry uniform... This time, however, the SS references on the soldier's uniform were removed." Since these articles are from the same website, I kept both versions in article. DLX, please stop removing references to legitimate sources, even if their reporting is out of sync with your convictions. 206.186.8.130 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
“ | This time, however, the SS references on the soldier's uniform were removed. | ” |
So, it is obvious that Monument of Lihula, in fact, does not have SS emblems. So, I will remove that claim again. Unless you can find a source stating that they were re-added, please don't put misleading material to the article. If you want, describe it thoroughly - "when in Pärnu, monument had SS symbolics, but those were removed". DLX 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Source [1] clearly mentions condemnation of Wiesenthal Center. 206.186.8.130 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Needs more sources, better image, in-depth description of controversy (what organisations protested? Individuals?). Section/separate article about the controversial views about WW2 in Estonia (I removed the section "A Question Handling Attitudes towards History", as it was in bad English and didn't point to any sources). -- DLX 08:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
However, the Estonians in German Army had fought for their fatherland and had not been involved in war crimes.
Commission concludes that the Estonian Legion and a number of Estonian police battalions were actively involved in the rounding up and shooting of Jews in at least one town in Belarus (Nowogródek); in guard duties in at least four towns in Poland (¸ódê, Przemysl, Rzeszow, and Tarnopol); in guard duties at a number of camps in Estonia and elsewhere; and in the deportation to Germany of an unknown number of civilians from Belarus and Poland. ............................................... The Commission has reviewed the role of Estonian military units and police battalions in n effort to identify the specific units which took part in the following actions: 1) escorting Jews deported from Vilnius to camps in Estonia. 2) providing guards for the Vaivara camp complex, the camps at Tartu, Jägala, Tallinn, and camps for Soviet POWs, in all of which prisoners were killed. 3) guarding the transit camp for Jews at Izbica in Poland, where a significant number of Jews were killed. 4) providing guards to prevent the escape of Jews being rounded up in several towns in Poland, including ¸ódê, Przemysl, Rzeszow, and Tarnopol. 5) the roundup and mass shooting of the Jewish population of at least one town in Belarus (Nowogródek).
-- Mkjell 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"The Security Police were called in..."
That´s incorrect. Security police is not handeling protests, they´re "white collar" section of Estonian police. More information: http://kapo.ee/eng_yldinfo.html
What the author probably wanted to say is "The riot police were called in", details: http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/10835/
This article has very little dates. Is this intentional?-- Alexia Death 09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding my last edit, I would like to point out that in the absense of a beter solution I basically coppied from one of the sections of the see also article, with some edits of mine. The idea was that, since there is dispute, to present the whole story. It must be re-written a little, IMO, for example the second to last paragraph of the section "Controversy" I think should become the second paragraph of the same section. In order to do this, one of the things necessary to do is to have all dates: for example the date the monument was removed is not given (is it so hard to find the precise date?). Without the dates I'm afraid that my edit does not respect all causality... At least it is not comepletely clear what follows what. : Dc76 16:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with Dc76's version, but I think there are couple of relevant moments which fell through the cracks: 1. Whole story of Estonian volunteers participating in Nazi crimes is not just 20.Waffen-Grenadier Division, was it conscription- or volunteer-based. There were Estonian volunteer police battalions and their participation in Nazi's war crimes is well documented. 2. Mayor of Lihula during memorial incident is self-confessed Holocaust denier. I see it as relevant fact. Shouldn't it be included in the "Controversy" section? Besides, whole Controversy section looks longish to me. It should really just have several points:
10 lines at most. What do you think? 206.186.8.130 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai's edits: user did not provide his rationale for deletion referenced materials. Request for comment will be placed on his talk page. Wouldn't he respond within 24 hours, his edit will be reverted. 206.186.8.130 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I see article written by Lihula's mayor in 'Further reading' section. To me it screams that his viewpoint is relevant to whole story. I guess that makes mention of his Holocaust denial views relevant. RJ CG 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
References
Can we see the text of Peeter Torop's conclusion about monument not having NAZI symbols in English? Could somebody who read Estonian translate article? It is not clear, does Professor Torop consider Waffen SS insignia "nazi symbols".
Here is a rough translation of the article:
“ | Police has ordered an expert analysis of the Lihula monument from Peeter Torop, a professor of semiotics at the University of Tartu, to clarify possible incitement of hatred. [The professor] didn't find any indications of Nazi symbolism from the memorial, SL Õhtuleht reports.
Police is not releasing the name of the person who requested an investigation leading to the expert analysis. The request leans on the penal code's section on inciting social hatred. [The section] prescribes a fine or imprisonment of up to three years for activity that publically calls for hatred or violence based on ethnicity, race, religion, heritage, political convictions, etc. The Western police precinct does not have specialists trained in assessing whether the monument causes such hatred or violence, thus it was decided to order the expert analysis from a semiotician. The expert analysis is ready, but the police did not rush to publish Peeter Torop's conclusions. "We can not publish it yet, as it is pertinent to a pending investigation," Kaja Kukk, the press representative of the Western police precinct said. The preparer of the analysis, Peeter Torop of the semiotics department of University of Tartu says that he has handed over his conclusions to the police precinct and underlines that the Lihula monument does not have any elements of SS symbolism. "Any possible SS ties are muted. The bas-relief has a cross on its chest, but no swastika. The man wears a universal German army helmet whose shape is certainly not a reason to consider it Nazist. It should be said that the monument instead strongly stresses the aspect of Estonia. For example, the soldier's sleeve has an image of the tricolor and there's an emblem shaped like the core of a cross from the War of Liberation on the collar," Torop outlined his conclusions. But he mentions that the statue is excessively warlike. "In the expert analysis, we compared the monument against war-time photos and mobilisation posters where a soldier has the exact same pose and also looks towards East. Apparently, it could be said that the monument is impolite or controversial," Torop refers to content faults of the artwork in today's context. "The core of the issue is that it is hard to explain to the rest of the world that it is an Estonian soldier who served in a German army's ethnic unit. Waffen-SS has never been declared criminal, but try to explain that to the foreigners," he said. "It is sad that the controversy attached to the statue makes it possible to look at it as a Nazi soldier. Proper image management should have foreseen this long ago," he admits. "Examples need not be looked far away. Our own Italian colleagues called and asked angrily what restauration of fascism is going on here. We had to explain to them in a peaceful and fact-based manner that nothing like that has ever been in Estonia," the semiotician adds. "People who know the details and have familiarised themselves with the nature of uniforms can tell one apart from the other, of course. But most people develop their position based on what the press reports and do not bother with the kernel of the issue," noted Leonhard Lapin, a professor at the Academy of Arts. |
” |
Digwuren 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The museum is 'private' in the sense that it is privately owned. It is not secret, and it is open to the public. 'Private museum' is most likely a straight translation from Estonian eramuuseum; the accent differences were what led to the confusion.
By the way, the museum has a (badly designed) webpage at [4]. Digwuren 19:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have started an article for Museum of Fight for Estonia's Freedom. Digwuren 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Nikola Smolenski makes an interesting point in [5]. It is true that the monument has so far never been permanently removed. I suspect that the original wording of 'removal' was intended to convey the monument's long-term non-exposition following both of the removals. Which wording would be the best one? Digwuren 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I had been asked to explain a connection. I am at loss here. Both actions are closely related to the same period in history, the same regime. To me the connection is self-evident, if both actions are performed by the same person. And one is highly relevant ot another (again, if we're talking about the same person). So if the Holocaust denier chaired town council which decided to put up the monument, it is relevant. RJ CG 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask you guys a question. If Holocaust denier presides over a council which decides to put a monument honouring Nazi collaborators, how is it NOT relevant to each other. Could you please explain? TIA RJ CG 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sander Säde 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO Tiit Madisson is a quite notable person. His mentioning can be relevant if there are sources to quote which say that it was on his initiative the monument was brought to Lihula (hot just because he was mayor at this time). In this context his views on WWII history are certainly relevant as well. `' Míkka 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
"The tablet reads: To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence." "Hitler, however, was hesitant to allow foreign volunteers to be formed into formations based on their ethnicity, preferring that they be absorbed into multi-national divisions. Hitler feared that unless the foreign recruits were committed to the idea of a united Germania, then their reasons for fighting were suspect, and could damage the German cause." - from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts This article lacks a lot of things, including a demonstration of the historical conflict visible above, when Estonian former SS-members now claim to have fought for the restoration of Estonian independenceback then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.138.209 ( talk) 22:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is only this formation is described (particularly that it was composed of draftees and not volunteers)? For example Estonian Legion, its predecessor, was initially composed of volunteers. Alæxis ¿question? 07:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have the full version of the article? Is it used as a reference for all preceding statements in the paragraph? Alæxis ¿question? 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
PU/Anti-Nationalist, please read the source [7] further then just headline. The article itself doesn't say it is a Nazi monument - and there are plenty of sources stating otherwise, as you can see from the article.
Considering we both are under investigation by ArbCom, I see your current POV-pushing spree as highly provocative and extremely inappropriate.
I also think this dispute gets us away from the topic. If the controversy about the monument is sufficiently great (as is probably the case here - if not for the controversy it wouldn't have been mentioned in any non-Estonian media) it should be mentioned in a neutral way in the intro. Alæxis ¿question? 09:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I still don't think that the current "Regarded by the BBC as a "Nazi war monument"" is an optimal solution, especially as it only describes the headline of the article - which tend to be intentionally sensational even in BBC. The article itself makes no claims about the monument being Nazi, only "controversial monument". BBC also gets some facts wrong, as the monument is not dedicated only to "honour those who fought with Nazi forces against the Soviet Union in World War II", it is also dedicated to forest brothers, youths (15-16 yo) who were drafted/joined flak ground crews and others - like the plaque says, to all, who fought for "restoration of Estonian independence". I do think that the creation of the monument was a stupidity, but some of the people behind the creation of the monument are not especially known for their brightness and clear thinking - but the use of it in propaganda wars is as stupid. -- Sander Säde 07:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link. The sub-section on "Controversies" under the section on "Controversy" sounded especially strange. Looking back at my previous edits, I see that the sub-section used to be named "Concerns about Nazi glorification", so I restored that. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Source [2] clearly mentions that monument "showed a soldier in a German uniform with a Waffen-SS (combat SS) unit emblem". But, since source [1] mentions that "The monument... depicts a soldier in a German infantry uniform... This time, however, the SS references on the soldier's uniform were removed." Since these articles are from the same website, I kept both versions in article. DLX, please stop removing references to legitimate sources, even if their reporting is out of sync with your convictions. 206.186.8.130 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
“ | This time, however, the SS references on the soldier's uniform were removed. | ” |
So, it is obvious that Monument of Lihula, in fact, does not have SS emblems. So, I will remove that claim again. Unless you can find a source stating that they were re-added, please don't put misleading material to the article. If you want, describe it thoroughly - "when in Pärnu, monument had SS symbolics, but those were removed". DLX 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Source [1] clearly mentions condemnation of Wiesenthal Center. 206.186.8.130 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Needs more sources, better image, in-depth description of controversy (what organisations protested? Individuals?). Section/separate article about the controversial views about WW2 in Estonia (I removed the section "A Question Handling Attitudes towards History", as it was in bad English and didn't point to any sources). -- DLX 08:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
However, the Estonians in German Army had fought for their fatherland and had not been involved in war crimes.
Commission concludes that the Estonian Legion and a number of Estonian police battalions were actively involved in the rounding up and shooting of Jews in at least one town in Belarus (Nowogródek); in guard duties in at least four towns in Poland (¸ódê, Przemysl, Rzeszow, and Tarnopol); in guard duties at a number of camps in Estonia and elsewhere; and in the deportation to Germany of an unknown number of civilians from Belarus and Poland. ............................................... The Commission has reviewed the role of Estonian military units and police battalions in n effort to identify the specific units which took part in the following actions: 1) escorting Jews deported from Vilnius to camps in Estonia. 2) providing guards for the Vaivara camp complex, the camps at Tartu, Jägala, Tallinn, and camps for Soviet POWs, in all of which prisoners were killed. 3) guarding the transit camp for Jews at Izbica in Poland, where a significant number of Jews were killed. 4) providing guards to prevent the escape of Jews being rounded up in several towns in Poland, including ¸ódê, Przemysl, Rzeszow, and Tarnopol. 5) the roundup and mass shooting of the Jewish population of at least one town in Belarus (Nowogródek).
-- Mkjell 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"The Security Police were called in..."
That´s incorrect. Security police is not handeling protests, they´re "white collar" section of Estonian police. More information: http://kapo.ee/eng_yldinfo.html
What the author probably wanted to say is "The riot police were called in", details: http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/10835/
This article has very little dates. Is this intentional?-- Alexia Death 09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding my last edit, I would like to point out that in the absense of a beter solution I basically coppied from one of the sections of the see also article, with some edits of mine. The idea was that, since there is dispute, to present the whole story. It must be re-written a little, IMO, for example the second to last paragraph of the section "Controversy" I think should become the second paragraph of the same section. In order to do this, one of the things necessary to do is to have all dates: for example the date the monument was removed is not given (is it so hard to find the precise date?). Without the dates I'm afraid that my edit does not respect all causality... At least it is not comepletely clear what follows what. : Dc76 16:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with Dc76's version, but I think there are couple of relevant moments which fell through the cracks: 1. Whole story of Estonian volunteers participating in Nazi crimes is not just 20.Waffen-Grenadier Division, was it conscription- or volunteer-based. There were Estonian volunteer police battalions and their participation in Nazi's war crimes is well documented. 2. Mayor of Lihula during memorial incident is self-confessed Holocaust denier. I see it as relevant fact. Shouldn't it be included in the "Controversy" section? Besides, whole Controversy section looks longish to me. It should really just have several points:
10 lines at most. What do you think? 206.186.8.130 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai's edits: user did not provide his rationale for deletion referenced materials. Request for comment will be placed on his talk page. Wouldn't he respond within 24 hours, his edit will be reverted. 206.186.8.130 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I see article written by Lihula's mayor in 'Further reading' section. To me it screams that his viewpoint is relevant to whole story. I guess that makes mention of his Holocaust denial views relevant. RJ CG 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
References
Can we see the text of Peeter Torop's conclusion about monument not having NAZI symbols in English? Could somebody who read Estonian translate article? It is not clear, does Professor Torop consider Waffen SS insignia "nazi symbols".
Here is a rough translation of the article:
“ | Police has ordered an expert analysis of the Lihula monument from Peeter Torop, a professor of semiotics at the University of Tartu, to clarify possible incitement of hatred. [The professor] didn't find any indications of Nazi symbolism from the memorial, SL Õhtuleht reports.
Police is not releasing the name of the person who requested an investigation leading to the expert analysis. The request leans on the penal code's section on inciting social hatred. [The section] prescribes a fine or imprisonment of up to three years for activity that publically calls for hatred or violence based on ethnicity, race, religion, heritage, political convictions, etc. The Western police precinct does not have specialists trained in assessing whether the monument causes such hatred or violence, thus it was decided to order the expert analysis from a semiotician. The expert analysis is ready, but the police did not rush to publish Peeter Torop's conclusions. "We can not publish it yet, as it is pertinent to a pending investigation," Kaja Kukk, the press representative of the Western police precinct said. The preparer of the analysis, Peeter Torop of the semiotics department of University of Tartu says that he has handed over his conclusions to the police precinct and underlines that the Lihula monument does not have any elements of SS symbolism. "Any possible SS ties are muted. The bas-relief has a cross on its chest, but no swastika. The man wears a universal German army helmet whose shape is certainly not a reason to consider it Nazist. It should be said that the monument instead strongly stresses the aspect of Estonia. For example, the soldier's sleeve has an image of the tricolor and there's an emblem shaped like the core of a cross from the War of Liberation on the collar," Torop outlined his conclusions. But he mentions that the statue is excessively warlike. "In the expert analysis, we compared the monument against war-time photos and mobilisation posters where a soldier has the exact same pose and also looks towards East. Apparently, it could be said that the monument is impolite or controversial," Torop refers to content faults of the artwork in today's context. "The core of the issue is that it is hard to explain to the rest of the world that it is an Estonian soldier who served in a German army's ethnic unit. Waffen-SS has never been declared criminal, but try to explain that to the foreigners," he said. "It is sad that the controversy attached to the statue makes it possible to look at it as a Nazi soldier. Proper image management should have foreseen this long ago," he admits. "Examples need not be looked far away. Our own Italian colleagues called and asked angrily what restauration of fascism is going on here. We had to explain to them in a peaceful and fact-based manner that nothing like that has ever been in Estonia," the semiotician adds. "People who know the details and have familiarised themselves with the nature of uniforms can tell one apart from the other, of course. But most people develop their position based on what the press reports and do not bother with the kernel of the issue," noted Leonhard Lapin, a professor at the Academy of Arts. |
” |
Digwuren 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The museum is 'private' in the sense that it is privately owned. It is not secret, and it is open to the public. 'Private museum' is most likely a straight translation from Estonian eramuuseum; the accent differences were what led to the confusion.
By the way, the museum has a (badly designed) webpage at [4]. Digwuren 19:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have started an article for Museum of Fight for Estonia's Freedom. Digwuren 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Nikola Smolenski makes an interesting point in [5]. It is true that the monument has so far never been permanently removed. I suspect that the original wording of 'removal' was intended to convey the monument's long-term non-exposition following both of the removals. Which wording would be the best one? Digwuren 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I had been asked to explain a connection. I am at loss here. Both actions are closely related to the same period in history, the same regime. To me the connection is self-evident, if both actions are performed by the same person. And one is highly relevant ot another (again, if we're talking about the same person). So if the Holocaust denier chaired town council which decided to put up the monument, it is relevant. RJ CG 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask you guys a question. If Holocaust denier presides over a council which decides to put a monument honouring Nazi collaborators, how is it NOT relevant to each other. Could you please explain? TIA RJ CG 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sander Säde 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO Tiit Madisson is a quite notable person. His mentioning can be relevant if there are sources to quote which say that it was on his initiative the monument was brought to Lihula (hot just because he was mayor at this time). In this context his views on WWII history are certainly relevant as well. `' Míkka 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
"The tablet reads: To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence." "Hitler, however, was hesitant to allow foreign volunteers to be formed into formations based on their ethnicity, preferring that they be absorbed into multi-national divisions. Hitler feared that unless the foreign recruits were committed to the idea of a united Germania, then their reasons for fighting were suspect, and could damage the German cause." - from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts This article lacks a lot of things, including a demonstration of the historical conflict visible above, when Estonian former SS-members now claim to have fought for the restoration of Estonian independenceback then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.138.209 ( talk) 22:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is only this formation is described (particularly that it was composed of draftees and not volunteers)? For example Estonian Legion, its predecessor, was initially composed of volunteers. Alæxis ¿question? 07:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have the full version of the article? Is it used as a reference for all preceding statements in the paragraph? Alæxis ¿question? 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
PU/Anti-Nationalist, please read the source [7] further then just headline. The article itself doesn't say it is a Nazi monument - and there are plenty of sources stating otherwise, as you can see from the article.
Considering we both are under investigation by ArbCom, I see your current POV-pushing spree as highly provocative and extremely inappropriate.
I also think this dispute gets us away from the topic. If the controversy about the monument is sufficiently great (as is probably the case here - if not for the controversy it wouldn't have been mentioned in any non-Estonian media) it should be mentioned in a neutral way in the intro. Alæxis ¿question? 09:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I still don't think that the current "Regarded by the BBC as a "Nazi war monument"" is an optimal solution, especially as it only describes the headline of the article - which tend to be intentionally sensational even in BBC. The article itself makes no claims about the monument being Nazi, only "controversial monument". BBC also gets some facts wrong, as the monument is not dedicated only to "honour those who fought with Nazi forces against the Soviet Union in World War II", it is also dedicated to forest brothers, youths (15-16 yo) who were drafted/joined flak ground crews and others - like the plaque says, to all, who fought for "restoration of Estonian independence". I do think that the creation of the monument was a stupidity, but some of the people behind the creation of the monument are not especially known for their brightness and clear thinking - but the use of it in propaganda wars is as stupid. -- Sander Säde 07:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link. The sub-section on "Controversies" under the section on "Controversy" sounded especially strange. Looking back at my previous edits, I see that the sub-section used to be named "Concerns about Nazi glorification", so I restored that. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)