Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:16, 4 May 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Soviet Union This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2. Archive 3.

Weird manipulations

I'm listing a number of weird things Petri Krohn has done repeatedly here. Some of them have gotten reverted; some he has ceased to do once incontrovertible evidence was produced; some he's still doing.

• Attempts to irrelevantly inject Estonian SSR's 1991 command structure into the background (it is irrelevant and available from the pages on the independence history) and to push the POV that economic migration of Russian workers to Estonia happened due to "rapid industrialization" after WWII (it didn't; Estonia had been well industrialised by late 1920s; however, many immigrants came to work on construction projects in Northern Estonia, especially mining operations):
  • (also covers the demolishion idea)

• Attempts to claim that a mystic "lustration" process would be performed on the statue (false: Estonia does not perform mystic procedures; the closest to those would be the ecumenic prayer performed by two military chaplains, one Lutheran and one Orthodox, in the beginning of exhumation and probably also upon the reburial when that will take place), or that it would be "dedicated" (false: Estonian practice of publishing secular signs, such as statues, important signs, and some artworks involves "opening" them, which has nothing to do with imbuing magical essences into those signs and is instead a ceremonial unveiling of them. "Dedication" is only performed in religious contexts such as opening a new church):
  • (with an especially weird comment on Waffen-SS)
  • (also covers the demolishion/newness idea)

• Attempts to overstress the City of Tallinn's claim to the monument. (See below for discussion of this topic.)

• Attempts to introduce "under cover of secrecy" into the brief intro or otherwise insinuate excessive secrecy on the part of the government. This was quite inappropriate as nothing of the plans was secret except the timeline (indeed, even mass movement of national police into Tallinn a few days earlier was covered in the news) and I consider it blatant pushing of the POV that the monument was removed in secret and without consulting with the people; thankfully, it has ceased.
  • (also inappropriately replaces "relocate" with "dismantle")
  • (also covers the "demolishion" idea and adds weasel-words)

• Inappropriate attempts to declare the monument "demolished" or otherwise imply it ceased to exist. These, too, appear to have ceased.
  • (also covers the newness and "dedication" ideas)
  • (also covers the "rapid post-war industrialization" idea)
  • (also covers the "secrecy" idea and adds weasel-words)

• Attempts to push the POV that after relocation, the monument would be "new".
  • (also covers the demolishion and "dedication" ideas)

Digwuren 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC) (updated several times as the diffs got gathered)

Then, he inappropriately removed this section in and , inaccurately calling it "stalking" and making baseless accusations of "personal attacks".

And again in . Digwuren 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And again in , this time claiming "archival". Given his edit to this very same section mere seven minutes earlier, archival is clearly premature and probably intended to cover for removal of a section he dislikes.

Such dislike is weird. This section's only personal content is pointing out a pattern of misedits, and the reason they're misedits is clearly documented. Yet, he perceives it as a sort of personal attack --- a perception in which he is alone. Digwuren 10:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not do it again. This collection forms a basis for a planned detailed and systematic treatise of a number of issues that has potential to cause, or has already caused, edit warring. Your removing it *is* disruptive, and against Misplaced Pages policies.

Of course, if you regret your patterned POV-pushing on any of these topics (which is likely, as you have ceased making some of these reverts), you're welcome to help document the achieved consensus on these aspects. My issue is not with your person but with topics that clearly do not have properly documented consensus. Digwuren 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have found a compendium of Petri Krohn's weird POV. It is at User:Petri_Krohn/Restoration_of_Estonian_independence. Digwuren 11:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the misconceptions listed above

Purification, dedication, lustration

In Estonian tradition, secular statues are not "dedicated", nor "lustrated". Such statues, however, can be "opened", or "unveiled"; this can be done several times to a single statue. Declarations of the Estonian Ministry of Defence are clear that what will happen on May 8th will be an opening ceremony combined with a celebration of the VE-Day; another opening ceremony will apparently be held in June when the mastaba will have been reerected and the exhumed war victims reburied.

The important parts of an opening ceremony are the opening speech and a ceremonial removal of a veil, a cover, or a curtain placed on the statue (or sometimes, just a ribbon set up around it or in front of it) before the ceremony. It is symbolic of presenting the statue publically, and the statue having been public earlier does not prevent such a ceremony from taking place. However, it's customary to only have opening ceremonies when something new can be presented. A new location will qualify; so will newly restored mastaba.

The tradition has been practiced in this form at least since 1920s, and the ceremony can also be performed on a building, a sign on a building, or various kinds of memorials. In rare cases, farming machines and industrial production lines were "opened" in this manner in the Soviet times. Digwuren 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on it. I will consider it documented consensus, and reflect so on the main page. If anybody would disagree, please express the reasoning here. Digwuren 17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been informed, off-Misplaced Pages, that the cases of ceremonially opening industrial production lines were not "rare". I'm crossing this part out. Digwuren 13:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Demolition of the statue / building a new statue from parts of the old one

This is a peculiar one. As far as I can tell, no notable source has raised this question in the form you have pushed it. However, there are two possibly related concepts.

There have been rumours, now clearly shown unsubstantiated, of the bronze statue having been cut off from above feet, or cut into pieces and then welded together when the protesters required its reinstatement. (Even the Russian Duma's special fact-finding mission repeated these rumours.) This has not happened; in part because there was no need to cut the statue for transportation; in part because it's very hard to actually weld bronze. The seam the Duma representatives fingered is technological, derives from the original casting process, and has been on the statue before its removal, as can be seen on high-resolution photographs taken before the removal.

Furthermore, in the early hours after the removal, there were also rumours of the whole monument having been trashed and irretrievably lost. Most of these rumours can be traced to Mr. Linter, and, also, are now clearly shown unsubstantiated.

No "continuity" or "sameness" issues have been raised by notable sources; it's consensus among Estonian population (both Estonian-speaking and Russian-speaking) that the statue has been relocated, not destroyed and rebuilt, and the only even remotely relevant notable issue has been that the new location of the statue is somewhat unfamiliar to most people that care for regularly visiting it. Digwuren 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on it. I will consider it documented consensus, and reflect so on the main page. If anybody would disagree, please express the reasoning here. Digwuren 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that the Duma representatives have expressed a notion that the Bronze statue was sawed into pieces which were then welded together again. This notion is absurd, and after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained that to the Duma representatives, they do not appear to have repeated it. This notion is similar to, but different from, the idea that handling the mastaba and the bronze statue separately constitutes taking the monument apart and building a new monument from the pieces. thus destroying the monument's continuity. Digwuren 11:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

City property claims on the statue

It is a fact that the monument is legally a property of the city.

However, it merits no more than a mention in the overall narrative, and a claim that it was first erected by the city is incorrect.

First, in Estonian governance practice, the border between city and state property is not always clear; it is routine for the state to command city property through legislative or administrative acts. For property ownership purposes, municipalities of Estonia are not distinct from the state; instead, they are departments or subsidiaries of the state.

Second, the property aspect has only been covered in a single declaration of the Mayor of Tallinn; it was not even considered worthy of response by any state official. (Mention of it in this declaration is the only reason it merits mention in Misplaced Pages at all.) No actual legal claim against state has been madefiled by the municipality of Tallinn, neither through a court of law nor through the Chancellor of Justice; all that has been made is a single claim in a press-oriented declaration by the mayor.

Third, in 1947, when the monument was erected, Estonia was under early Soviet rule, and 'city' was not a legal entity that could own property or perform actions. Instead, the erection would have been done by either some sort of 'committee' (most likely, the 'executive committee of the city') or a branch organisation of the Communist Party. Property issues of public monuments was not clearly regulated under the Soviet legal system, there being no need for such regulations, and it was only after the events of 1991 that it became possible to say that the monument was a property of the City of Tallinn. Digwuren 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on it. I will consider it documented consensus, and reflect so on the main page. If anybody would disagree, please express the reasoning here. Digwuren 17:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn answers

(Thank you for removing my name and the link to my user page from the title of this section. It makes the harrasing aspect of your attack less obvious. What you have done is however not in line with the guidelines of removing personal attacks. If you felt uncomftable with what you wrote earlier, you should have deleted the whole section, as repeatedly suggested to you. -- Petri Krohn 02:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

What you have done is post a personal attack on me, consisting of stalking. I have asked you to remove the harashing material and concentrate on the issues. You have refused. The fact that no one has commented on your flame only proves, that others on Misplaced Pages do not share your view, or do not want to take part in your attack, or to dignify it by commenting on it.

Further down you argue, that the lack of comments on your accusations and manifest is a silent approval of your views. No such inference can be drawn. As this section is about dicussing me and my conduct, inferences about other issues are without merit. -- Petri Krohn 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This section does not discuss you, it discusses changes that just so happens you and not anyone else is pushing. I see no personal attack, just a call to stop edit waring. So why not stop crying ATTACK and start explaining? Alexia Death 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't comment on this before, because seeing how hard it is to do that without you thinking it is an attack on you. Also I didn't see the need. The way I see it, this is not a personal attack but rather a plead for your reaction to the questions raised; to clarify your points on why you have made such edits and reverts.

. --82.131.52.66 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked him to remove the attack/dicussion about me and to concentrate on the issues themself. (see here.) I will not discuss the issues under this heading and consider all descussion here on substance to be null and void. He is however free to remove this crap and repost the questions without the personal harrasment. -- Petri Krohn 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting (or contesting his points) is indicative of agreement, not disagreement. You could say that all others here (apart from you) agreed with his analysis. I fully support what he wrote. Ethnonazi 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel I should add this important quotation from WP:STALK - a page that Petri Krohn so graciously referred:

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.

My point in quoting that is obvious and needs not be stated explicitly. Digwuren 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tallinn Military Cemetery (Tallinna Kaitseväe kalmistu)

I created a stub about the military cemetery. I'm not 100% sure about its official name, so, please, feel free to improve and expand the stub. --Camptown 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Defence Forces Cemetery of Tallinn"? (Defence Force = Kaitsevägi) - 82.131.52.31 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha... I was wondering about that word. Defence Forces Cemetery of Tallinn is probably more correct. The cemetery seems to have been cited as the Military Cemetery in recent reports, so that should go an inofficial name. --Camptown 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Estonian Embassy in Moscow

about Thursday, 26-th

news from Friday, 27, in russian: http://lenta.ru/news/2007/04/27/embassy/

google translation to english: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Flenta.ru%2Fnews%2F2007%2F04%2F27%2Fembassy%2F&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.65.192.20 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

http://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/estoniareports/article.php?id=15768596 194.204.35.117 21:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.epl.ee/uudised/384176

Assault on Estonian ambassador by nashisht youths during a press conference , Swedish government protests trashing of their ambassador's car trying to enter Estonian embassy . Ethnonazi 13:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the term nashist. It's much wieldier than the clumsy 'member of the political youth organisation Nashi', or even 'member of Nashi'. Has any notable source used it? Digwuren 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't find any, though it appears that the term 'нашисты' enjoys fairly common use in russian written media. Ethnonazi 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Alas

What is know about him? Supervising architect... The man behind the mastaba.... (wasn't he?) I cannot find any other architectual related stuff to that man, so was he really an architect, or just another Soviet bureaucrat who had been delegated for the creation of a war memorial? --Camptown 21:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He was an architect; some data about him http://www.virumaa.ee/discuss/msgReader$527?mode=topic - Ahsoous 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikolay Kovalev (FSB)

It seems that the Nikolay Kovalyov mentioned in the article is the same Nikolay Kovalev (FSB) who preceeded Vladimir Putin as the head of the Russian FSB. -- Petri Krohn 00:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly is. Today, he chairs the State Duma’s Veterans’ Committee. -- Camptown 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the transliteration discrepancy? I was of the impression ё (yo) is always romanized as such. --153.104.64.72 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's because the official romanisation of Russian names is done by the French-oriented rules, which are not always intuitive for an English speaker. Specifically, the umlaut of Russian yo is commonly left out in written Russian, and the official transliteration use the written form rather than the pronounciation. Recall also Gorbachev. Some languages -- for example, Estonian and Latvian -- have their own rules for Russian name transliteration, however. Digwuren 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

POV image

Removed the thumbnail. I don't understand how it correlates to the rest of the article. Smaller caption text is mine. -00:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a memorial to the "liberators of Tallinn". Have you ever wondered what they liberated Tallinn from? (In fact this aspect should be covered in much more detail in the article.)

Anyway, the reason the image is incluided, is that the article how has a section describing how nice the Nazis were. -- Petri Krohn 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it too difficult to understand that at the time the Germans were considered a lesser of to evils? The first Soviet occupation with it's mass deportations and killings was too fresh and there was no illusion what will happen after these Soviets return.194.204.35.117 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Way off-topic, and duplicates Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany. Link to that artice instead. Ethnonazi 01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing to liberate (that wasn't really a liberation), because German forces had retreated before Soviet forces came in. Those who stayed were Estonians, AFAIK. -BStarky 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Estonian Jews were not saved by Sweden, but by their Soviet citizenship, that allowed them to escape to other parts of the Soviet Union, often boarding the same trains that were used for the famed "deportations to Siberia". -- Petri Krohn 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using double quotes there. Apart from confirming your lack of neutrality, it's outright offensive. Ethnonazi 01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Afte checking my sources... the forced deportations of 1941 did indeed include hundreds Estonian citizens of jewish descent. Your indication that they merely 'caught a ride' on the cattle trains is incorrect, as is your claim about their Soviet citizenship. Any sources? Ethnonazi 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a credible source. I think Estonian Jews still had their Estonian citizenship when escaping to wherever they escaped to. -BStarky 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri, you might want to read this publication ] about the terrible , terrible persecution suffered by the jewish in the ethnically pure Estonia. Do the words cultural authonomy ring a bell? Ethnonazi 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Russians and Jews had cultural authonomy in pre-war Estonia. Today Russians do not even have citizenship. -- Petri Krohn 02:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What stops them from acquiring Russian Federation citizenship? -BStarky 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. Free to accept it, as they are free to apply for naturalization (I doubt many have problems with the 5-year permanent residency requirement). Ethnonazi 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If they all take Russian citizenship, could they not demand that the Russian parts of Estonia be ceded to the Russian Federation? -- Petri Krohn 03:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Ethnonazi 03:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's theoretically possible such demands could be made. However, it is not politically likely they would be supported by others than political extremists, and there is no Constitutional way to yield to these demands. Digwuren 09:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that there is no "Russian part of Estonia". I'm sorry for missing this tidbit earlier. Digwuren 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The cultural autonomy laws were reinstated together with the Republic. You probably don't know it (considering your knowledge on Estonia), but in locales with majority russian-speaking population, official business can be conducted in russian. Russian-languague education is provided by government on all levels. Just a few examples of the oppression. Ethnonazi 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, official business can be conducted in any language as long as all the participants are proficient in the language. The extent of "legal language discrimination" is the requirement that any *official* be proficient in Estonian, so knowledge of Estonian would be *sufficient* in conducting or understanding official business. Some officials, including some policemen, have been sacked because of violating this condition, and cries of "discrimination" invariably followed. Digwuren 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Estonia really have university education in Russian? Soviet Estonia did not have! -- Petri Krohn 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you on about, of course Soviet Estonia did have university education in russian. In USSR it would have been impossible to have an university with no russian. Where _do_ you get your data from? Ethnonazi 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that the rumours of the government closing Russian schools are misleading. Russian schools are not closed out of intent to discriminate but because demographics clearly show Russian-speaking schoolchildren numbers are on the fall. It's the same reason many Estonian-speaking schools have been closed. Digwuren 09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: Used second, smaller caption in the article, as the above one is off topic and unnecessary. 11:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Date for first image

The first image of the statue at its former place should be dated, what's the best format for this? --NEMT 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The date is May 2006, but that's all that Petri Krohn provided. Do you want to improve the thumbnail caption? -BStarky 02:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the current caption is misleading without a date. --NEMT 02:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the date, but caption text may need a bit of improvement by way of rewording. -BStarky 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the caption for 3rd image is even worse. It says 'Map of mass grave', despite the map on image being captioned 'Project for The Field of Liberators', with no mention of graves. Ethnonazi 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I think that the following passage from Claims of police brutality,

A number of video clips, usually taken via cellphone camera, have appeared on
Youtube under the keyword 'eSStonia', ostensibly to corroborate the police 
brutality claims. Interestingly, most of them are mislabelled, apparently in 
an attempt to frame the incidents recorded in the clips in a pro-rioter way. For 
example, the clip labelled "eSStonia - Police car crushes pedestrians crowd" 
features no pedestrian-menacing cars.

is an original research violating WP:NOR.Yury Petrachenko 04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It has/had a valid source as a newspaper article, see that in that passage. DLX 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The is a Youtube video, which is a primary source. The passage clearly makes interpretive and evaluative claims based on primary sources only. Yury Petrachenko 06:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to use numbers for references in discussion, as they're bound to change over time. In this particular passage, there's also a reference to , which makes the evaluation; the evaluation is not original research. Furthermore, it is dishonest on part of Yury Petrachenko to leave out the reference, as it is clearly available in the passage in the article. Digwuren 09:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't missed the reference on purpose. With the reference it makes sense to me. Although, I still think that in the passage evaluative claims based on Youtube videos are being made ("...ostensibly to corroborate the police brutality claims", "in an attempt to frame the incidents... in a pro-rioter way").Yury Petrachenko 11:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have been too hasty in accusing you of intentional dishonesty. I apologise for that.

However, I disagree with the idea that the passages you quoted are evaluative claims. Digwuren 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian goverment accused of cyber terrorism

• BBC: Russia accused of 'attack on EU' But, is there substantial evidence, supporting the accusations of cyber terrorism? --Camptown 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Estonian goverment has said that it has enough evidence to support these claims. 195.50.212.85 14:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

theyve got some IPs. --82.131.14.98 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Paet, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has given the address lists to journalists. None have yet been made public, though. It is not yet known if it is because the journalists consider them too boring for that, or because the government considers them sensitive. Digwuren 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's important to point out that the loaded term of terrorism does not figure in the official accusations. Digwuren 10:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Baltic" equals "Nazi"?

Is it true that the same city of Tallin has recently installed an infamous huge monument for ethnic baltic Waffen-SS dead? (Several tens of thousands of latvian, lithuanian and estonian men fought and died for Hitler's cause in WWII)

If this is true, contrasting the erection of an SS monument with the removal of Red Army monument, the decision to nuke the entire Baltikum to cinders should be made, because Europe does not need three hitlerist countries. death to fascists! 82.131.210.162 12:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"the decision to nuke the entire Baltikum to cinders should be made" What is this for rhetoric? There are countries in the world, where quotations of this kind are regarded as criminal. And I AM ready to call for a judicial satisfaction, at least in the frames of Misplaced Pages. Without any fun. Try not to be fascist yourself. Toni Sotte

There's no such statue in Estonia. Public display of nazi symbols is forbidden. Ethnonazi 12:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Estonian men fought and died for Hitlers cause because if they would not they would be shot or were just picking the lesser of two evils. Its OT but its part of my family lore that my grandfather escaped a train taking Estonian men to the front to fight for Germany with most of others on that train. After that the trains were armed so that anyone trying to run was shot immediately. Your information is plain wrong. Alexia Death 12:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Were there an Adolf Hitler statue in Tallinn before the events of 1944? Camptown 13:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unknown, quite possible that some were erected during Nazi occupation. Ethnonazi 13:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim 'fought and died for Hitler's cause' is at the root of many recent troubles. They fought and died fighting against soviets, ideology wasn't something wartime balts could afford. Ethnonazi 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The same "fought and dies for Hitler's cause" does apply for any territory the German army invaded (including parts of Russia). It is just a way of war - invading armies (including Soviet) will utilize local people for their needs and there isn't much they can do about it.194.204.35.117 15:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, the phrase implies subscribing to an ideology, which rarely was the case. Ethnonazi 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

With the risk of going off-topic again. I'm writing this to maybe clarify the situation in the area between Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union before and in the beginning of WWII. It is a common misconception that there were just two sides in the WWII. This was the case at the end of the war, but in the beginning you could talk about three. In 1939 Stalin still hoped for the west and the Axis powers to clash together so that the Soviet Union could later come in and take care of both. The alliance between the western powers and the Soviet Union was not done because of common ideology (well, duh!) but because of common goals: to eliminate Nazi-Germany. During the time before WWII the situation was not clear for the western powers on who was the bigger enemy - Nazi-Germany or the Soviet Union. Both were totalitarian states with powerful dictators and both had expansion in mind in Europe. This is of course speculation, but I think Estonia would have chosen to be part of the "third party", that is the western powers if it had been geopolitically possible. Just compare with Finland during the Winter War (where Nazi-Germany remained neutral but the Soviet Union was condemned by the rest of the world). Ostrobothnian 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No SS monument? Really?

If there is no monument to the Waffen SS in Estonia, what's this?

Estonia Restores Monument to SS Legionnaires, Russia Angered

15.10.2005

MosNews

The Russian government has released a statement saying Estonia has mocked the memory of victims of fascism by restoring a monument to an SS legion, RIA Novosti reported.

The monument to Estonians who fought on the side of Germany during World War II was initially put up in 2002, but taken down after an international outcry. In 2004 Estonia first restored it but it did not survive criticism again.

On Saturday it was installed near a private Museum of Fight for Estonia’s Freedom in a village of Lagedi outside the capital, Tallinn, in presence of at least 500 people .

“It is especially outrageous that this is happening in the year that marks 60 years since the end of World War II,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “A new attempt to glorify the Estonian SS legion shows that official Tallinn continues to have a supportive attitude toward them. We believe that such an approach has no justification.” (source: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/10/15/estoniamonument.shtml access date: today)

A bigger photo here: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/Daily-Pics-August/aaz

Grant | Talk 07:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See Monument of Lihula, that is the monument in question. There are no nazi symbols (or any symbols, for the matter of fact) and the uniform is not SS-uniform. The dedication is "To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence.". No nazis are mentioned or glorified. DLX 08:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Th monument in question was removed by government in reply to international outcry within weeks, despite of expert being brought in by police determining no symbols of SS were displayed apart from the helmet of soldier depicted being of generic german WW2 make. Ethnonazi 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, the only Estonian unit I have come across in the Wehrmacht is the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian). To which non-Waffen SS Axis units did Estonian soldiers belong? Grant | Talk 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.germanwarmachine.com/hitlersforeignlegions/thebalticstates.htm is a well-researched writeup on military aspects. Only units designated as 'estonian' are described in detail, though. Ethnonazi 12:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

or http://www.wehrmacht.pri.ee/ for a writeup by a local history buff, only partially translated, though. Ethnonazi 12:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet victory over...

This line has changed from fascism (incorrect) to nazism (correct) to nazi germany (historically correct, but symbolically incorrect). Based on the context of the statement, it can be inferred the bronze soldier is meant to symbolize the more abstract victory of soviet ideology over nazi ideology (a common theme with the soviets), not the soviet state over the nazi state. Additionally, listing it as a victory over fascism is both historically and symbolically incorrect, as nazi germany was not a fascist state, and the soviet victory over germany did not end fascist regimes elsewhere around the world (nor did it stop new ones from springing up from time to time) - which mostly fell later without soviet intervention (Italian Social Republic, Franquist Spain, Estado Novo, et al). It did, however, spell the end of state nazism. --NEMT 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The symbolism is Soviet victory over "evil". Depending on country and language "evil" might be replaced by any one of these. For American readers the word Nazi Germany would be easiest to undestand, as this word has come to represent WW II genocidial enemies. The Soviets however would always use the word "fascism". -- Petri Krohn 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that first wiki link. Additionally, while the soviets may not have made a distinction between nazism and fascism, history and logic have. --NEMT 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the "evel" link. As for faschism vs nazism, do we want to mirror Soviet POV (As you yourself note) or internationally agreed-upon consensus? Ethnonazi 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Knievo-Soviet War is too often forgotten in history. Anyway, this article says "nazi germany" --NEMT 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Criminal element among "protesters"

Pealinna tuntud kriminaalid kaitsesid pronkssõduri (in Estonian, "Known criminals protected the statue" (freely translated/quoted): "Other criminal activity was reduced by half in Tallinn during the protests, despite the fact that almost whole police force was in the city center. Photos and videos of the protesters and looters, however, show many well-known criminals among them - quite often as group leaders and most active." Not sure if it is relevant or not - probably is, to show what kind of people were leading the protesters - but how to include it to the article? DLX 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Kosovo Liberation Army also started as a gang of criminals. Now they are handed a state on a silver platter. So, what's your point? -- Petri Krohn 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

They're still a gang of criminals. --NEMT 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

These persons were no ordinary "criminals", but known figures from organised crime syndicates. MAFIA. 123

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.54.91.25 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

The article quotes policemen saying they recognized many faces - as in, previously arrested for criminal conduct - among the crowd. Pickpockets, drug dealers, etc. Ethnonazi 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This can still be viewed as personal and possibly biased judgement call. It's probably more significant to add the fact that a number of previously unsolved crimes were solved due to DNA testing of the people arrested on the riots. Unfortunately, I'm too sleepy to hunt down the quotation for that right now. Digwuren 10:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

“Disproportionate use of force?”

Quoting the article: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights: "According to media reports as well as reports received by the IHF, police in some cases used disproportionate force against riot participants. - Could anyone specify, which media reports did the Federation use as sources? Russia Today, NTV? Estonian Television? E.J. 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• EPL has published a bit sanitized account of experiences of one such detainee (who was innocent and who has provided his full name in the paper):
  http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/384182 (the longer version is at http://itaever.blogspot.com ).

The writing genre is clearly artful, not documentative, which has raised concerns of mixing fact with fiction in this account. Unfortunately, it means this account can not be used as a proper source. Digwuren 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Minister Pihl defended the use of force to protect democracy: http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/384310

-BStarky 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

International responce

USA official press statement related press conference transcript

The Americans do not seem to get it! No mention of the main party in this conflict, Estonia's Russian non-citizens. Reconciliation among Estonia's citizens will not help in this dispute. -- Petri Krohn 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

State Dept's phone number is 202-647-4000. Enjoy. Ethnonazi 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Causality and secrecy

The Estonian side seems to be pushing two (non-factual) POVs that contradict each other. The first is, that there were originally no plans to remove/relocate/demolish the memorial, only to conduct excavations. The lead now states:

The above clearly tries to imply, that the removal was a response to the riots and the security threat. At the same time, the same editors claim that there was no (state) secrecy around the plans, and everything (except for a detailed timeline) could be freely read from the Estonian press. Both of these views cannot be true at the same time.

It seems clear to me that plans for the removal had been done in secrecy well in advance, without consulting Estonia's Russian minority. Suggesting some kind of a causality beween the the riots and removal is a blatant lie, and political propaganda by the Estonian government. -- Petri Krohn 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect. The _plan_ for relocation lead to _riots_ which lead to faster than planned _relocation_. Ethnonazi 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been general plans to relocate the monument since about the last winter. However, the *work* that was begun in April 2007 involved only archaeological digs, to check on the hypothesis that war graves were under the monument. This was important to establish the legal classification of the monument: if war graves would be found, it would be a grave marker, and would be relocated to a graveyard once reburial of the war victims was completed; if war graves would not be found, it would be a political art ensemble and would be relocated to a museum. The rules for the archaeological investigation, as well as detailed handling of the first scenario, are detailed in the War Graves Act.

However, rioting broke out. One of the security concerns was that the rioters could damage the monument, and this was considered unacceptable. Factoring this and other considerations, the Security Council advised the Government to remove the statue; the Government held a crisis meeting, and agreed. It was published in an early morning press release shortly afterwards (which meant that the release was too late for newspapers of the day, but it was covered in early morning TV news and, of course, the newspaper's Internet editions), and a few hours later, the monument's relocation was confirmed complete. As by that time, it was still not yet clear whether war graves would be found (the first digging attempts having yielded no graves; also, monument's removal required vehicle access, which disrupted digging), the monument was not moved straight to a graveyard but first, to an undisclosed workshop.

When first confirmations of war graves were reported, work was commenced on reinstalling the statue on the military cemetery; the mastaba could not be reerected without a proper concrete foundation due to its weight, and works on getting the mastaba back were postponed to after the May 8-9 celebrations, mainly out of aesthetical considerations for the look of the monument's new environment during the celebrations. The mastaba consisted of calcium-cemented dolomite and was not hollow, which means that not only pouring the new foundation but also relaying the mastaba will take more time than the few days that were left between end of April and May 8. Digwuren 11:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There now appear to be signs that the claims of secrecy are not entirely baseless, but not through any actions by the Government of Estonia. Instead, there are signs that several important tidbits, such as the intent to relocate, not just tear down, the monument, were not duly published in a number of Russian-language newspapers, even though they were widely covered in Estonian-language newspapers; thus, it is not unreasonable to expect that many ethnic Russians would not have had access to those tidbits in advance, and would believe they had been secret once they learnt of them. If confirmed, this should probably be documented in the article. I think it ties to the Language Divide issue slightly explained in Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#Background, and interacts with Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#Pro-rioter propaganda. Digwuren 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant?

'Estonian support for Nazi Germany'

'Also, many Estonians tend to regard the Nazi occupation as less harmful for Estonia than the Soviet one, in terms of human loss, violence, economic destruction etc. This, and the fact that during WW2 Estonians were conscripted to the Waffen-SS (notably the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) as well as to the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps of the Soviet Army, has led to accusations of pro-Nazi (or fascist) sentiments among Estonians.'

First, the headline is POV, designed to draw attention in TOC. Secondly, the 'Background' section presents both sides' positions and grounds thereof cealry and concisely, hence this snippet is unneeded fluff. Thirdly, it's logically faulty: 'Estonians were conscripted by one side as well as other side, leading to accusations of them being partial to one side'. Hmm? Ethnonazi 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed that section, it was all irrelevant, POV and unsourced. DLX 05:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not entirely agree. The headline was, indeed, POV. However, the view of Estonians as die-hard Nazi supporters and adherents to fascist policies is an important issue regarding the monument's fate in minds of a number of people, and the view was also a major thread in the surrounding propaganda campaigns. Hence, the background of these claims, and the misconception that military (forced) allegiance means sharing political views, should probably be briefly explained. Unfortunately, I lack proper understanding of the full background, so I won't be doing that.

I do agree, however, that the section as it stood was unserviceable, and I believe it's a good thing it was removed until a better section would be written. Digwuren 11:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gazputin

Amid the developing dispute between Russia and Estonia, the Swedish National Radio's senior correspondent to Poland, (and its correspondent to the Soviet Union for more than a decade) Kjell Albin Abrahamson, has namned the Russian President Putin - "Gazputin", saying: "With oil and gas, he has succeded, where the Soviet Union - despite having neuclear weapon - failed". Gazputin. --Camptown 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

New intro

I think we should create new intro which should start with the information about what and where the bronze soldier currently is, not what it was. The history part should ofcourse be mentioned, but it is quite POV to start with it as if the statue was demolished. Also the main image should be replaced with the current one. Estonia will never return the statue to it's previous place, so we should get over it. Suva 09:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, though, that the article is about a monument and a mass grave, and not just the bronze sculpture. Camptown 10:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not yet time to declare that the monument is on its new location. The mastaba has not yet been relocated, and the war victims have not yet been reburied. Furthermore, the statue's former location is still politically important. In an important sense, the statue standing alone in its new location is just a pictographical sign: "The monument will be here.".

I will support stating the new location as primary after June. Digwuren 11:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

War Graves Protection Act

"On January 10, 2007, Riigikogu passed the War Graves Protection Act, with 66 votes in favor and 6 against, initiated by the Estonian Reform Party, Social Democratic Party, Res Publica Party and Isamaaliit Party."

Why does it lists votes and involved parties? If the law was passed then it is for everyone to follow and to indicate that some party made the law has no relevance in this article. 194.204.35.117 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is no separate article on that Act there is no other place where to put the details. Andres 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The details are irrelevant in this article's context. You're welcome to *make* that separate raticle, though. Digwuren 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Following paragraph is a POV and speculation: "Another effect of the law was that it placed all war graves under the jurisdiction of the Estonian Ministry of Defence. Tõnismägi being city land, municipal cooperation would have been necessary for exhumation and/or monument removal without such legislation. As Estonian non-citizens are allowed to vote in municipal elections and are largely in support of retaining the statue, the City Council of Tallinn has a large Russian representation; any approval was unlikely in the foreseeable future. The law eliminated the need to negotiate with the municipal government for war grave related business — specifically, exhumation of the buried bodies and, if the corpses would be found, relocation of the monument which would then be considered a grave marker." 194.204.35.117 10:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be speculation by its content. However, it is not a new or independent speculation, and such speculation formed an important basis for considerations of the War Graves Act. Somebody with confidence in handling parliamentary stenographic records should try to find out the specific quotations for sources, though. It's a pity TV transmissions of the Parliament are not recorded on the web like ETV news are. Digwuren 11:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is not POV and not speculation but it needs reference. Andres 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to reduce the speculation to the present municipal government refusing such cooperation. This is easier to back up, as that has been published in newspapers, and we won't need to dig through the stenographic records. Digwuren 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename article proposal

I would suggest to replace the current title to Bronze Soldier of Tallinn removal controversy. This article hardly goes about the statue itself (only a short section about the building and design), but goes about the controversy surrounding the removal of the statue. Sijo Ripa 10:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is very little on the statue itself - mostly about the controversy. I support splitting the article. --MoRsE 10:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A vote on this has been held, and unfortunately archived. The consensus was that it is too early for splitting. I agree, but I also agree with splitting once the controversy is over, the monument has been fully relocated, and clearer dividing lines can be drawn between the monument as a structure and the controversy around the monument. Digwuren 11:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The article may perhaps be renamed when the controversy has settled down a little bit. For the time being, it's probably a good idea to keep the name as it is. result of latest vote, Camptown 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would probably support that, too. Digwuren 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we keep this article under the present name and split off / start a new article under Russian - Estonian diplomatic controversy or Russian - EU diplomatic controversy (or something similar). -- Petri Krohn 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of "Russian" instead of "Soviet"

"It is also seen as a symbol of mass murder and deportation of Estonians by Russian occupation forces in 1949, when around 20,000 innocent Estonians were deported to Siberia to the GULAG."

I think one should should change "Russian" to "Soviet" because it happened in the time of Soviet Union. Otherwise, one can assume that only ethnic Russians deported ethnic Estonians, which is obviously untrue. I would also mention that Russians have suffered from the Soviet rule in much greater proportion.

I agree, it should be changed in places where Soviet is appropriate. DLX 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but it probably needs some explanation.

This sentence explains feelings of the Estonian population. In feeling of many, many Estonians, the occupation was performed by "Russians", not a widespread coalition of "Soviet states". Hence, it is correct to say that many Estonians see the monument as a symbol of Russian occupation, even if technically, the occupation was performed by the USSR, not Russia.

Furthermore, "Russia" and "Soviet Union" are frequently used synonymously in Estonian political discourse, similarly to how in Russian political discourse, the Nazis are invariably called "fascists".

Perhaps, something like "... seen as a symbol of mass murder and forced deportation of Estonians by Russian (see USSR) occupation forces ..." would be a good wording. Digwuren 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Side note: The Russian Federation is a successor of USSR, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.204.35.117 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Soviet Union articles
• Unknown-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• Former good article nominees