Misplaced Pages

Talk:History of Estonia

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Petri Krohn (talk | contribs) at 07:49, 18 May 2007 (→POV: subjective evaluation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:49, 18 May 2007 by Petri Krohn (talk | contribs) (→POV: subjective evaluation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconEstonia Unassessed
WikiProject iconHistory of Estonia is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

On prehistory

The history page ignores the history of their ancestors the Chuds, who lived on both sides of lake peipus, and who were noted as one of the founding tribes of russia along with the slavic krivichians and, i believe, derevlians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.70 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 June 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the reference to 'founding tribes of Russia' means. The Estonians are not slavs.
There are two versions of Estonian prehistory. The oldest, derived from (I think) German philologists in the last century, attempted to trace the origins of the Estonian people through their language, which belongs to the Finno-Ugric group. This version places a common linguistic group somewhere on the asiatic Steppes, and migrating in a Westerly direction. At one point, a location on the Dnieper bend is indicated, since there are koc turk loan words. The first division led to the settlement of one group in Northern Siberia. (Estonian anthropologists still conduct field work amongst some Ugric tribes.) The second division resulted in one group crossing the Carpathians and settling the Pannonian plain, evolving into the Magyars (Hungarians). The other group migrated towards the Baltic and evolved into the Estonians and Finns. this interpretation was more or loss orthodoxy in Western Europe until quite recently, and is still found in many books.
The article expresses a fairly recent view that has become current in Estonia itself, and is, for example' to be found in the displays at the excellent Folk Museum at Tartu. This research picks upon a seeming anomaly. The language is undoubtedly Finno Ugric, but the mythology and surviving pagan traditions correspond to that of the Proto-Baltic people, of whom the Lithuanians are the most pristine surviving example. This version stresses that some form of conquest or assimilation resulted in the adoption of an official conquerors language but the retention of an indigenous culture.
I hesitate to add this to the article, though I think the traditional theory ought to be mentioned somewhere. Can someone supply some referenced commentory on Estonian origins?
Dr. Barry Worthington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.165.3 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications needed

I think the sense of this period is not clear: "Historians see the lack of any bloodshed after a nearly "700-year German rule" as indication that it must have been mild by comparison." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.8.168 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Independence section, paragraph four: "Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (...) agreed to divide up the countries situated between them (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland)". It is not clear in which way the countries mentioned above are between Germany and Russia, when Germany, at present, borders only with one of them (and three at the times the pact was signed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The division was part of the "Secret Clause" of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Hitler and Stalin; Germany was to have the western part of Poland while the Soviet Union was to have the eastern part and a free hand with the Baltics and Finland. A look a the map will show how the former lay between Germany and the Soviet Union; Finland was percieved by Stalin as a possible route of attack particularly against Leningrad, which is why the Russian areal demands (the rejection by Finland of which led to the Winter War) included part of the Isthmus of Karelia and the large islands of the Gulf of Finland.--Death Bredon 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Role in World War II & the Holocaust

Estonia's responsibility for its actions in World War II and the Holocaust have largely been ignored or muted in favor of arguments against the policies of the Soviet Union. I have noticed in many articles (not to mention the media) about Estonia its participation is rarely mentioned, as with the other Baltic States. --RPlunk 00:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"It" (i.e., Estonia) was occupied by USSR an Germany after 1940. It was not possible for Estonia as a state to participate in, or to be responsible for, any actions in the Holocaust. The actions of any individual Estonians collaborating with the Soviet or German occupation regimes is a different topic. I hope you are able to sense the difference. Cheers, --3 Löwi 08:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is entitled History of Estonia, not the History of the Government of Estonia. The country of Estonia is the people of Estonia; therefore the actions of some citizens of Estonia does belong in an article about the history of Estonia and its people. The article on the history of France mentions French collaboration with the Germans; logically Estonian collaboration with the Germans should be mentioned as well. A possible solution, as you suggest, are new articles dealing with groups of Estonians collaborating with the Soviets and the Germans. Thanks for your response.--RPlunk 16:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the relevant information, and 3 Lwowi had some good edits. The info I had, however, was the the Jews of Estonia that escaped primarily did so to the West (see, for example )--Goodoldpolonius2 18:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Goodoldpolonius2. Your quoted source, regrettably, is erroneus. For the Jews in question (or most other Estonians for that matter) it would have been near-impossible to flee to the West from Soviet-controlled Estonia in 1940-41. Some may have done so before the beginning of the Soviet occupation of Estonia (in June 1940), but most Jews fled from Estonia to the East, i.e., to USSR-proper, after the German invasion in June 1941. As a courtesy, if you are interested in more detail, please have a look at the Holocaust section in this document, which contains the conclusions of the so far most authoritative and comprehensive international commission’s investigation of WW2-period crimes against humanity in Estonia. Regards, --3 Löwi 20:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Good link, thank you. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both for your work.--RPlunk 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Gap from 1st century to 1193

There is a gap from 1st century to 1193, and an even bigger gap in the Estonia article. Is there a historian who can fill this in, at least saying when a state formed and/or which powers controlled the area? --144.138.96.30 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"By the early Middle Ages most Estonians were small landholders, with farmsteads primarily organised by village."
Eesti viimaste aastate ajaloolaste tööd (sh ilmunud raamatud) on üsna kummutanud fakti, et 13. sajandiks oli Eesti võrdõiguslik ühikond ilma suurema kihistumiseta ning väikeste maaomanditega. Pigem arvatakse, et kihistumine oli juba üsna suur ning maa nagu ka muud ressursid ja privileegid kuulusid juba väikese hulga ülikute e. vanemate kätte.
Äkki asendaks seetõttu selle lause?
(Sorry for discussing in Estonian but I presume that Estonians know Estonian history better than foreigners.)
Valdopraust — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdopraust (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And estonians are very emotive especially at the time beeing and hence incapable of taking an NPOV view though that is what they try --84.249.52.136 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone correct the timeline or ad done that would say that it's Livonia to Lithuania or Livonia to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? That Livonia to Poland fact is completely inaccurate, as Poland didn't incorporate that part of Lithuania after 1569.

Päts ending the timeline of Independent Estonia?

I think it's non-constructive and can lead to biases, and claims of biases, to have electing Päts to be the last item of the timeline of 'Independent Estonia'. Instead, the timeline should end in the more important events of the independence's loss; probably starting from the Treaty of the Russian Military Bases, and ending with the first annexation into the Soviet Union. Digwuren 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bogus map?

The map of 'Livonian Confederation 1260' strikes me as bogus. I can't really place my finger on anything specific yet, but the borders do not resemble what I recall, and I also have a feeling of anachronism. What is the source of the map? Digwuren 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have checked a few other sources, and I withdraw my objection for now. Digwuren 10:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

Modern Estonian propagation approves, that these "договоры" have been accepted in conditions of " the Soviet occupation ". It is necessary to specify that the Estonian nazis wrongfully use the term "occupation" since input of armies according to the contract and with the consent of the government of the country into which armies are entered, occupation is not.--Jaro.p 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling those who edit this article "Estonian nazis" clearly illustrates Jaro.p is being abusive. Martintg 12:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The former Soviet official view, increasingly shared by current Russian nationalistic circles, was that Estonia "asked for help" and "joined the Soviet Union voluntarily". Whether or not the activities of a puppet governement can be considered legitimate is something everyone can decide for themselves.--Death Bredon 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
OK I can calling those who edit this article "Estonian nationalistic circles" it is mach better? Such point of vief exists and should be written. Why the Estonian government did not run from the country as Polish or Czechoslovak by okkupation? I moved NPOV back.--Jaro.p 09:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Pre-1991 reliable Western sources sometimes refer to the events of June 1940 as "occupation". They however refer to Estonia as Estonian SSR, accepting the de facto annexation of Estonia. Present-day "occupation theorists" claim that Estonia was occupied territory from 1940 to 1991, and that the Estonian SSR never existed. I consider the use of "occupation" and "okupandid" in this meaning as a form of hate speech. (See also: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Occupation of Baltic states#Comment by Petri Krohn )-- Petri Krohn 12:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not heard anyone claiming that Estonia was not annexed de facto. Whole point is the fact that annexation was completely illegal, so de jure Estonia was occupied. Czech part of Chechoslovakkia was also de facto annexed by Germany before war, still for some reason you can read a lot about Czech resistance to German occupation.--Staberinde 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet view is, that Estonia was not "annexed", but asked to join the Soviet Union voluntarily. As for the "occupation", de jure is a subjective evaluation, it has no objective meaning. -- Petri Krohn 07:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Categories: