Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:43, 12 June 2007

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Title

I would like to hear what is wrong with title Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961. Please no blanket statements about holocaust denial. Trial was took place in Soviet Estonia and it was about Holocaust. "War Crimes" can include many other things and do not even need to be connected to WW II.--Staberinde 13:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The crimes were not commited in "Soviet occupied Estonia"
2. The word "holocaust" was unknown in 1961
3. the word "war crimes" is used for most, if not all related trials.

Now for the "blanket statement":

The attempt to change the name is yet another example of Estonian Holocaust denial. The emphasis in on the word "Soviet" as if to point out that:

• Soviets had no authority to try the "claimed" war criminals
• The trials had no international recognition
• They were most likely show trials

Futhermore the intent here is the infer, that as the trials were null and void the accused must in fact have been innocent.

None of these assuptions have any support in the sources. -- Petri Krohn 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri, I asked what is wrong with title (Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961), I did not question if it is show trial, if they were actualy guilty, if estonia was occupied then trial took place or anything else unrelated. Also that The word "holocaust" was unknown in 1961 is not an argument as it was also not known in 1939-1945 but we still have article The Holocaust.--Staberinde 13:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn's apparently complicated preferences for article title wordings can be explained by Occam's razor: He does not particularly care whether the victims were Jews or not, he denies the Soviet occupation of Estonia, and his Misplaced Pages record clearly indicates that he hates Estonians. Hence he did not particularly want the words 'Holocaust' and 'Soviet' to be used here, and would vehemently stick to an article title insinuating that these were not so much 'Nazi crimes', or 'crimes of Estonian collaborators', but 'Estonian crimes'. Cheap and transparent.--Klamber 20:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the title of Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961. Other variants are thinkable, such as Holocaust trials of 1961 in Estonian SSR. I oppose narrowing the scope to war crimes; old footage shows undubitably that the primary accusations were those of crimes against humanity instead. Thus, classifying the whole proceedings under Holocaust (as well as genocide) is more appropriate than classifying it under war crimes.

Furthermore, it probably deserves mention that trials like this, as well as other -- less publicised -- NKVD/KGB executions, were a main factor in there being so little Nazi criminals left to try in post-Soviet Estonia, which Simon Wiesenthal Center regularly points out. Digwuren 14:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd logic that Petri would think that changing the title to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961 is Holocaust denial. I think Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961 better describes the article which seems to specifically describes crimes against Jews and Gypsies. War crimes really refers to something else and is outside the scope of the article. I would support a rename, perhaps to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia so we are not restricted to a particular year. Martintg 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It stems from Petri Krohn's inability to tell apart the real world from his private fantasies. Consequently, when he says 'Holocaust denial', the actual semantic content is 'You're disagreeing with me on a Holocaust-related subject!'. In this case, he appears to have gotten the idea that 'war crimes' is the One True Classification of the atrocity described, and, perhaps out of a "theory" that 'war crimes' is a harsher description than 'participation in Holocaust', sees reclassification of this Holocaust event as a Holocaust event as "reducing the significance of Holocaust".

I know, it's absurd to a reasonable observer. That's why psychoceramics, the study of cracked pots, is so hard to master. Digwuren 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Klamber's explanation above also merits consideration. Digwuren 05:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to Petri's claim that he word "holocaust" was unknown in 1961, the word was first used in 1942, see Holocaust#Etymology_and_use_of_the_term. Martintg 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This article specifically describes the trials held in Soviet Estonia over crimes committed against Jews during WW2. Martintg 22:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No - There is no precedent for this selection of words.

Google hits:

• "war crimes trial": 935 000
• "Holocaust trial": 753 (first hit: "Holocaust Denial On Trial")
• "Estonian SSR": 61 800
• "Soviet Estonia": 24 500 (most links to "post-Soviet Estonia")

-- Petri Krohn 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Google hits:

• "Estonian war crimes": 6
• "Estonian war crimes trial": 0
• "Estonian war crimes trials": 0

-- --Klamber 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Current title is not adequate, as they were Holocaust trials - and they certainly happened in Soviet Estonia. Perhaps Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, like has been recommended before. That gives all location, incident and time frame. DLX 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Petri has provided no serious argumentation aganist renaming. Also attempt to use very poorly conducted google search as agument is ridiculous, as Klamber demonstrated: "Estonian war crimes trials" = 0. Proposed Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia is a lot more accurate.--Staberinde 16:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Title is more succinct. This effort to keep the title Estonian war crimes trials in preference to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia seems to be an attempt to diminish the crimes of the Holocaust by placing it on the level of a mere War crime, thus it could be construed as a form of Holocaust Denial. --Martintg 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The suggested alternative title is much less ambiguous. Current title is logically inconsistent wordplay by a certain user with a vociferous record of denying the 1940-1941/1944-1991 Soviet occupation of Estonia. Inconsistent because, according to such "logic" of Soviet occupation denial, Estonian state did not exist in 1942, Kalevi-Liiva was on Soviet territory, and Gerrets, Mere and other criminals were Soviet citizens, which would make the subject of this article really "Soviet war crimes", not "Estonian war crimes"... Disclaimer: In case anyone suspects me of being the puppeteer of DLX and Klamber, please do not count this vote. Cheers, --3 Löwi 08:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

It seems to me, that that you are trying to dismiss the trials and the evidence as "Soviet propaganda". This is a common atitude among Estonians, as evident in the on-line comments to one of the sources: Arvamused artiklile Omakaitse omakohus -- Petri Krohn 14:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly do we want to dismiss those trials? By trying to fix the title that doesn't cover the topic accurately? Are you sure we have the "atitude"? DLX 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri, your attempts to picture trials over holocaust perperators as trials over simple war criminals can be considered holocaust denial. Secondly Soviet Estonia was place there trials took place, that if they were neutral or not can be decided by reader. Finally, please no statements in style "you are bad for reason x and this is common attidute among Estonians".--Staberinde 20:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Please note that the current title implicitly follows the same article naming convention as German war crimes, Italian war crimes, Japanese war crimes, Japanese war crimes trials, etc., whereas it would much more logically fit in the same pattern as Auschwitz trial, Belsen Trial, Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, Hamburg Ravensbrück Trials, Mauthausen-Gusen camp trials, etc. --Klamber 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is specifically about Holocaust crimes. The articles you cite also concern war crimes commited by states such as, for example

1. Forcing occupied people to serve in the forces of a hostile power
2. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
3. Settlement of occupied territory

which Germany, Italy and Japan were guilty of, but certainly not Estonia. --Martintg

Closing words of Gerrets

I remember reading from somewhere, that detailed conscript of trial's closing/final statement (probably wrong wording, I don't know what is correct) by Gerrets were released to the newspapers before he made that statement. I couldn't find the source, but it would be good to have that in the article. DLX 16:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Show trial?

From the article Show trial:

There has not been any proof or references presented to show that this trial would satisfy any of the criteria listed. It has been tagged for sources almost two days. I am removing the claim of show trial. -- Petri Krohn 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)