Revision as of 12:42, 21 August 2007 editRJ CG (talk | contribs)1,417 edits →Soviet historigraphy← Previous edit |
Revision as of 21:10, 11 June 2009 edit undoHorologium (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,566 edits →rename?: new sectionNext edit → |
Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
:::Mart Laar is a professional historian with many published works. Unless you can point to a published reliable source that critiques Laar's work, you view is just speculation and has no basis. ] 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
:::Mart Laar is a professional historian with many published works. Unless you can point to a published reliable source that critiques Laar's work, you view is just speculation and has no basis. ] 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
::::You completely missed my point. I did not say anything about scientific merits of Laar's work, I just said that he can't be impartial source in assessment of Russian historical school, as he propelled his career from humble postdoc to Estonian big chief on denying anything and everything Russian historians said. At this point it does not say anything about his professional merits (which are based on single peer-reviewed book and unchecked ability to write Estonian schoolbooks as he pleases), but it does say a lot about his confrontational approach toward the Russian historical school. That's why I suggested to check other's opinion about the Russian historians. ] 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
::::You completely missed my point. I did not say anything about scientific merits of Laar's work, I just said that he can't be impartial source in assessment of Russian historical school, as he propelled his career from humble postdoc to Estonian big chief on denying anything and everything Russian historians said. At this point it does not say anything about his professional merits (which are based on single peer-reviewed book and unchecked ability to write Estonian schoolbooks as he pleases), but it does say a lot about his confrontational approach toward the Russian historical school. That's why I suggested to check other's opinion about the Russian historians. ] 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== rename? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to do it right now, because of the AN/I thread on this article, but it really needs a rename. The proper title (which matches the lede of the article) should be '''Erna long-range reconnaissance group''' ("reconnaissance", not "recce"). If there is no opposition, I'll wait until the AN/I thread is archived and perform the move. ''']''' <small>]</small> 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
Some Erna veterans were charged and convicted of spying for Finland. If Soviet historigraphy views them as Nazi collaborators and controlled by the Abwehr, why were they not charged as being German spies? Is this an example of historical revisionism to suit current politics? I'd like a source for this assertion of Nazi collaborationism from the period. Did Soviet historigraphy also claim Finland was a nation of Nazi collaborators, because they also fought on Germany's side? Therefore does present day Russia continue to view the Finnish Army as a Nazi collaborationist organsation? Martintg 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to do it right now, because of the AN/I thread on this article, but it really needs a rename. The proper title (which matches the lede of the article) should be Erna long-range reconnaissance group ("reconnaissance", not "recce"). If there is no opposition, I'll wait until the AN/I thread is archived and perform the move. Horologium (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)