Talk:Monument of Lihula

References to German Army (instead of Waffen SS) uniform

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)

Please stay civil. Those emblems were removed, see [1]:

“ 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)

Please try not to lecture others when you are involved in selective use of sources bordering on POV. TIA. Same source "Baltic Times" has two conflicting articles. One of which is clearly saying that SS insignia was on memorial[2]. Unless you provide independent confirmation that insignia had been removed, I'll keep adding both references. 206.186.8.130 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

They were never removed, because there were no such insignia in the first place. It was a clear intention by the sculptor, and has been widely reported in the media. If Baltic Times claims otherwise, it is in error. Digwuren 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess we have a choice to believe Baltic Times or user Digwuren, who repeatedly tries to remove any association with Nazi Germany from this article. Would you be so kind to provide sources to support your POV, please? Until then I'll restore article to mention SS insignia. Consider this 1st warning. 206.186.8.130 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Where has Digwuren "repeatedly tried to remove any association with Nazi Germany from this article"? He rewrote the lead - and removed more then dubious claim. We have one source stating it has SS symbols, other that it doesn't. I don't know if they existed previously or not, but it is a fact that they are not present in a current statue - see this photo yourself, if you don't believe me. So please stop inserting this claim - especially since you fail to insert info from the other article, which would have made it at least NPOV claim. Oh, and since you insist using threats, consider it a first warning. DLX 05:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for photo. Unfortunately it is quite useless. It clearly shows the left collar and right collar is somewhat shadowed, but one can see there's something on it. SS insignia had been worn on right collar, so it is still quite possible that they're on the figure. Also you wrote "since you insist using threats, consider it a first warning". That sounds especially nice, taking into account your message on my IP's talk page. This warning is 2nd from you. Not that it matter too much. Regarding your NPOV claim. Again, this is a bit of black humor to read NPOV accusations from you after you repeated mention of Waffen SS, but, being a nice guy, I stuck to your source about SS insignia being removed this time around. Are you happy now? 206.186.8.130 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The statue NEVER had any SS-signia. IT is a man in German uniform. Just the uniform, no attributes. Police had it investigated for provocing signs. [3] A scientist concluded that there are no Nazi symbolics, but the statue was too confronting and simply rude. There is no proof anywhere that the statue was altered between postings. After all bronze cast statues are not that easy to alter.--Alexia Death 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Digwuren, could you share your reasons for starting edit war insetad of issuing threats on IP's talk page? TIA206.186.8.130 15:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

References to Wiesenthal Center Condemnation

Source [1] clearly mentions condemnation of Wiesenthal Center. 206.186.8.130 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to sources by link, not number - latter can and will change. DLX 16:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a good article

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/

Where are the dates?

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)

Latest edit of Controversy section by Dc76

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:

1. Dedication on monument includes Waffen SS soldiers and Estonian volunteers

2. Not all Estonians who fought against USSR in 1941-1945 were nazis and war criminals.

3. Monument had been condemned by the number of international groups and organizations.

4. Estonian government dismissed documents provided by Wiesenthal Center as lies (I'm not sure it really belongs here but it does add nice undertone).

5. Holocaust denier was the mayor of Lihula during this unfortunate incident.

10 lines at most. What do you think? 206.186.8.130 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there's a statement in "Controversy" section about memorial's supporter not approving Nazi policy, I think it would be fair to restore reference to mayor being Holocaust denier 206.186.8.130 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts to glorify Holocaust denial by insinuating -- irrelevantly -- it's a mainstream idea in Estonia are not appreciated. Do not add unnecessary claims to the article again. Digwuren 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning had been added on your talk page for blanking. I was not insinuating that it is mainstream idea in Estonia. I was adding referenced information about Mayor of Lihula being Holocaust denier, which is, in my eyes, extremely relevant in discussion of monument to Wehrmacht and Waffen SS soldiers. At least as relevant as unreferenced statement that "Most supporters of the monument, however, have clearly distanced themselves from the Nazi ideology". 206.186.8.130 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I restore reference to Holocaust-denial book published by Mayor of Lihula. 206.186.8.130 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't need any citations regarding Holocaust denial (it's referenced), I'll re-add it tomorrow in order to avoid 3RR rule. I should say that I approve {{cn}} tag added by Digwuren. Statement about supporters of monument to Nazi collaborators not approving Nazi ideas should be referenced. 206.186.8.130 21:08, 15 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)

It is obvious: any such supposed hobbies of the mayor, even if sourced, are irrelevant to the article. Digwuren 17:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Digwuren, link between Holocaust denial and being instrumental in setting up monument to the Nazi collaborators may be not obvious for you. I am of different opinion. 206.186.8.130 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since mikkalai saw my message on his talk page and chose to remove it without response, I am restoring the part about Lihula's Mayor. 206.186.8.130 17:57, 15 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

Peeter Torop's conclusion

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".

The conclusion was not released to public and there were no distinct Waffen-SS insignia in the bas-relief.

I am wondering, is there a good unaltered photo of the memorial on the NET with the right collar visible? That would be the easiest way to verify. 206.186.8.130 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to perform WP:OR in baseless mistrust of a respected professor's work? Digwuren 19:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the article, how come you were so quick to glorify Nazism in Estonia-related articles if you can't even read an elementary Estonian news article? Digwuren 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the connection. Should one be fluent in Estonian to read in English about Estonian officials accusing Wiesenthal Center of lying, for example? Anyway, am I wrong to base my conclusions on English-language press? Are they prejusticed against Estonia, in your eyes? 206.186.8.130 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It helps to understand the sources. Here, you're trying to portray the Wiesenthal Center as deliberately lying, which does not appear to be the case. Instead, the data they provided turned out to be duplicate of the data already possessed by Estonian defence police, and partially obsolete.

Wikipedia is *not* a place for you to broadcast your fanciful Nazi-romantic ideas, and not being able to read the relevant sources is not an excuse for pushing WP:POV falsehoods into Wikipedia articles. Digwuren 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Digwuren, isn't it policy on Wiki against personal attacks? I had been able to support my "ideas" with WP:NPOV sources and your accusation of "falsehood" is simply lie, but you in the same time repeatedly destroy verified and relevant parts of article because you don't like it. So stop your attack and try to stick to substance. 206.186.8.130 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for translation. It should be noted that at least one statement of Prof. Torop is wrong. Waffen SS had been declared criminal by Nuremberg. Estonian Waffen SS division had been excluded from list of criminal organization by American authorities at the height of Cold War, but that's another story. Frankly speaking, I'm quite puzzled by such an error from Estonia's most prominent researcher of Nazi symbolism. Did he study just symbols and nothing else from this period? Anyway, he refers to "emblem shaped like the core of a cross from the War of Liberation on the collar". Any pictures of "a cross from the War of Liberation"? TIA 206.186.8.130 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See? This is what a wilful trying to misunderstand looks like. Digwuren 08:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say your response is schoolbook attempt to evade unpleasant discussion by personal attack. I pointed at very real and weird (from someone declared "specialist in Nazi symbols") mistake made by an expert invited by authorities. Unlike you, I did not try to attack him personally (although his involvement in whitewashing of this event in discussion with his Italian collegues is pretty evident), and you responded with angry diatribe about my flaws. Thatnk you very much for very politicized and personal non-answer. 206.186.8.130 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of any reasonable person that might step by, I'm going to present an explanation of the misunderstanding in question.

First, it fails to take account the contextually obvious nuance that professor Torop is talking about Estonian units of Waffen-SS, not the whole militant structure.

Second, it falls prey to oversimplification. Waffen-SS as a whole was not declared inherently criminal (as the NSDAP was); instead, many of its individual units were condemned, and its leadership structure was declared criminal. (Note that there are several layers at play here. At the top, there was the Nazi party. It had an 'arm' -- not, say, a department, or a section -- called Schutzstaffel. Schutzstaffel, in turn, had a 'properly military' substructure called Waffen-SS. And finally, Waffen-SS had a number of subunits; some of them were considered integral to it; some of them -- mostly the ones formed in the later years of WWII, among them the so-called 'foreign legions' such as the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) -- were certainly not integral. Generally, Nazis attempted to maintain 'ideological purity', as well as 'racial purity' at the top layers, but neglected -- especially in the latter years when they started to feel the shortage of 'human resources' -- such purity requirements at the bottom layers. Accordingly, it is widely recognised that only the top commanding structure can be considered inherently criminal, and this recognition is represented in the Nuremberg findings, as well as other sources.

Third, the insinuations regarding "height of Cold War" are untrue. The stated position had been the official position of USA ever since the Nuremberg trials; the reason it was not commented in such form at earlier times was that before that, prospective immigrants and new citizens of USA of background of these 'foreign legions' had not been numerous. This was caused by a number of factors. For one, war refugees, as well as former Waffen-SS soldiers deserting their Nazi army posts, would tend to first flee into regions more closer to their original locations -- that is, closer to Europe. For another, naturalisation is not the first thing to do for an immigrant; generally, it takes years of residency for naturalisation to become even available. (I admit I do not have the exact year count required by INS regulations at that time.)

Fourth, professor Torop is not "Estonia's most prominent researcher of Nazi symbolism". In fact, I don't think there are any dedicated researchers of such a narrow topic in Estonia. Professor Torop is a semioticist.

Fifth, professor Torop being a semioticist -- not historian, and not a Nazism researcher --, the accusations of his scope being too narrow are clearly misplaced.

Finally, I'm not an expert in old symbolics, but I vaguely recall that the referred cross would be in the form of cross pattée. In any case, there is no reason to doubt the professor's team's work; however, it is worth pointing out that WWI-era symbols on a WWII-era uniform are significantly out of place. In this case, the most obvious reason for such distortion is replacing Nazi symbols with symbols that can be related specifically to Estonia; in other words, this very discrepancy is a sign of the sculptor's intent to distance the bas-relief from Nazism, and instead connect it to Estonian soldiers. Digwuren 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Museum's privacy

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)

Move/relocation

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)

Connection between denying a Holocaust and building monuments to Nazi collaborators

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)

This article is about the monument, not the place or the probably nutty mayor. I havent read the book, so I dont know what it is about exactly. It is not a monument for nazi collaborators. It is "To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence." Whole Finland was a German ally During the time managing to keep the soviet forces out. Should their monuments for Continuation war fallen be called monuments for nazi collaborators as well?--Alexia Death 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are making several grave mistakes here:

1. The monument was originally put up in Pärnu, not Lihula. Madisson was not a mayor of Pärnu, nor did he order the statue.
2. It is not a monument for honoring Nazi collaborators. Perhaps read the dedication once more?
3. How is it relevant to the statue that Tiit Madisson (I'd call him a crackpot, tbh) published a holocaust revisionist (not denial) book (btw, your link is to search, here is the correct link)

Sander Säde 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, just had an idea - RJ CG, why don't you start an article about Tiit Madisson? He is an internationally known person, with all his coup d'etat attempt in 1996 (for which he was imprisoned), books about holocaust denial/revisionism, freemasonry and other nutty conspiracy theories, controversy surrounding the Lihula monument and so on. There should be plenty of English material for it. Sander Säde 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be plenty of English material for it. You are wrong to think that every crackpot from Estonia deserves international attention. I did brief search and came up mostly with sites like "hiddentruths.com" Comparing to those sources pravda.ru is pillar of impartiality and bottomless source of anti-Communist facts :) www.antisemitism.org.il briefly mentioned him among others. Probably they had no idea he's an elected official in Estonia. Do you want me to notify them?RJ CG 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Was, not is. I have no idea what he is doing now, probably just a farmer. Go ahead, if you think that you can do your bit for mother Russia with that. Sander Säde 17:37, 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)

But whether or not there is any direct connection between his alleged views and erection of the monument is just speculation and WP:SYNTHESIS. Martintg 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Goals and principles of ww2 Estonian Nazi collaborators

"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)

Hitler may well have been hesitant about foreign volunteers, however, it is a fact that the majority of Estonian veterans were conscripted. Martintg (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also fact that German draft had been enthusiastically endorsed by the Estonian prime minister in the duties of the president Jüri Uluots, who delivered a radio address that implored all able-bodied men born from 1904 through 1923 to report for military service. This does not sit aprticularly well with "involuntarily draft" loophole, but those are technicalities, right? 206.186.8.130 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Uluots called on young men to assist in restoring Estonian independence in his radio address. Martintg (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian)

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)

This is not an area I am overly familiar with, perhaps User:Termer can be more helpful - however, originally men volunteered mostly for border guarding regiments and only 5000 men volunteered to 3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade. In January 1944 there was a general conscription, with 38 000 conscripts drafted for Waffen SS. All this is in those Wiki articles - however, the 38 000 is a weird number, as I thought that 20th Division had roughly 15 000 soldiers. --Sander Säde 07:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The exact numbers are not that important here, my point is that not all those who fought "for Estonia against Soviets" were drafted and some (and not a tiny part) were volunteers. So it's not right to write only about drafted members of Estonian Waffen SS formations in this article. Alæxis_¿question? 08:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By far, majority the of the unit members were always conscripts and were treated as such by Nuremberg commission (where they were present as... guards for the Nazi criminals, [6]). Only 500 to 900 men had volunteered to the legion, 90% of those had lost a relative in the Red Terror. The 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS is described as a conscript unit by all sources I could find (I do know that Russian Foreign Ministry is a sole exception for this, as they like to use the unit in their propaganda). --Sander Säde 09:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In your previous post you've written that 5000 men volunteered for 3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade. Anyway, if the majority of Estonians who served in various Nazi formations (and fought against Soviets) were conscripts and there's a reliable source (western, for example) confirming it I don't have anything against putting it this way in the article. Alæxis_¿question? 10:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Note the difference between 3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade and 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) - and like I said, this is outside my immediate area of interest - you might want to ask Termer or someone else more familiar with the topic. However, right now there are no sources in the material you inserted, please provide them? --Sander Säde 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Baltiс Times article

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)

On BBC and "Nazi war monument"

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.

--Sander Säde 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The text of the article (which I've read entirely – and read entirely several times over) reads: "An Estonian town has unveiled a controversial monument to honour those who fought with Nazi forces against the Soviet Union in World War II. The monument depicts an Estonian soldier in German military uniform." Here's another source, from far-away Taipei, Taiwan: [8]. The bulk of the articles on which this entry relies are in Estonian, not English, so I can't verify their content. However, every English source describes this as a monument to Nazi collaborators, not soldiers who "fought for Estonia" (they may have "fought for Estonia" in their minds, but in their minds only – there was no independent Estonia in World War II; the government-in-exile which existed following Estonia's annexation to the USSR in 1940 also ended up declaring war on the Nazi forces). The burden is on you to explain how the English-language sources' depiction of this monument as a commemoration of Nazi collaborators isn't correct. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we have situation, where primary source (plaque on the monument) and selected secondary sources (media coverage) partially disagree. There's big list of other secondary sources supporting original version, but you disqualify them automatically as you don't understand the language and don't bother look for verification either, instead you reach even further away and start bringing in Taiwanese sources. Do you really think that there actually were journalists from Taiwan in the place, so their articles should be regarded higher than Estonian sources? Sorry to say, but would you be so kind and leave this matter to people, who can and are willing to research all available relevant sources. Or you can change your attitude and actually start working with sources (reading headlines is not enough), if you can find alternative viewpoint that has some weight, you're welcome to add this into article. Right now, considering your current attitude and very obvious agenda - stop it. Põhja Konn (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know whether you consider the BBC article a reliable source, and whether the Estonians honored by this monument fought in an independent "Army of Estonia" or in Nazi-organized units. I think this is a crucial matter – I can find plenty of other sources (the Taiwanese paper is an example of many possible sources presenting the global POV Wikipedia strives for).

If the men fought for the German army, then we have a crucial historical fact, which there is no reason to omit this in the lede section. If, however, you or other Estonians contend that they were not fighters in the German army, then you need to show me at least one sources saying that the people honored by the Monument of Lihula fought for another army. Since Estonia was not independent at the time, Estonians living in Estonia faced the choice of fighting either for the Third Reich or the Soviet Union (aside from being conscripted into one of these armies, there was no third option, because there was no independent Estonia, and reliable sources bear this out). This monument commemorates the former. We can describe them as "Nazi collaborationists" or "Estonian patriotic fighters against Bolshevism", but the fact remains that they took up arms on the side of occupying Nazi Germany, not an independent Estonian entity. Please let me know which sources contradict this fact and in what particular way. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You are playing with words, I think there's even a special abbreviation for it.. right, WP:OR. You don't need official country to fight for your freedom. This is monument to men who fought in a war, the side they picked was far from perfect, but it was their only chance to fight against the regime which had killed or deported many Estonians. Besides, everything you're fighting for now is already present in article, neutrally - actual monument, reactions, different interpretations, opinions from both sides. Why do you think that lede should especially mention your POV that it's a pro-nazi monument, what's your problem with presenting both opinions with equal weight and let reader decide? Põhja Konn (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have it backwards. I do not care at all regarding the motivations of those who fought against the Soviet Union in the Estonian formations of the German army in the World War; what I care about is noting which side of the conflict they fought on behalf of (I've already noted that after summer 1940 there was no "independent Estonia" and no "Estonian Army" in existence to fight for, so to refer to those commemorated soldiers as those who "fought for Estonia in World War II" without any further explication is difficult to reconcile with this trivial truth of history).

Since the BBC, the Taipei Times, etc. clarify that the "fighters for Estonian freedom" refers to those who fought on behalf of the Third Reich, I regard it as a crucial fact that needs to be mentioned and not censored (after all, that's what the monument's notorious for). Unless I've completely misunderstood you, I don't think that you dispute that the monument honors the anti-USSR collaborationists – so why do you wish to avoid stating this fact? Can we agree that the fact that the monument honors collaborationists belongs in the lede? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that I got it backwards, as this article is about one specific monument. The monument was in Estonia, is was erected by Estonians and for Estonians (who fought against Soviet Union) - I can earnestly assure you that this is not for glorifying Nazis or collaboration with them, only for honoring those men who did what they thought was the best for Estonia and Estonians at that time. How all this looked from outside, is secondary (but of course important, I don't deny it). And no, I'm very seriously against to adding anything POV-ish to lede, let there be only cold straight facts. Plaque dedicates this monument to Estonian men who fought against bolschevism and it depicts a man with a German uniform. Full stop. Every interpretation, what this could mean, what somebody thought about it, how somebody reacted, belongs to following sections. Especially for you, small personal touch - I personally see the people, who erected this specific monument in that form, as complete idiots, and I'm suspicious about their actual agenda behind all this... but this still doesn't mean that present day Estonia is openly pro-Nazi regime. History could be a bitch... especially if one side actively starts using 65-year old things as current political propaganda.
I don't know why I even write to you, as I'm deeply suspicious about your agenda too. Seems that sometimes I happen to be idealistic, thinking that maybe somehow we all can still reach understanding, Russians could finally acknowledge that bolshevism and Soviet Union was horrible mistake, after that we could say that we're sorry about everything we've ever thought and said about Russians as we unfortunately happen to remember USSR times pretty well... Whatever, I'm sure that tomorrow I can read here how USSR was paradise on earth, those bloody Balts screwed everything (after being voluntarily joined USSR and "enjoying" it 50 years) and are currently the worst enemy of modern Russia. God damn all this politics. Põhja Konn (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you attack (most likely unintentionally) straw men here :) If one doesn't particularly like a monument to people who fought against USSR during WW2 it doesn't mean that s/he likes USSR very much or believes that Baltics voluntarily joined it. Similarly if there are some human rights problems in a certain country it doesn't mean that it's an 'openly pro-Nazi regime'. Alæxis_¿question? 09:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I attack somebody? PU is been here long enough and probably everyone knows or can guess for what he's fighting for, he should take my words as recognition of his "good" work he's done here. Liking or not liking of something is personal opinion and has to be left behing WP's door when you enter, this should be neutral encyclopedia and has nothing to do with its editor likings. Põhja Konn (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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 agree that my comment was offtopic and I apologize for that. Actually, I don't object mentioning controversy in the lead, my only concern is that as this article is pretty short and we have Controversy section right after lead, adding more details to the lead would make it dis-proportionally big and introduce repetitions to the article. My objection was against clearly one-sided opinions (like Nazi commemoration or collaboration thing) in introduction. Põhja Konn (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm absolutely for shortening the controversy section. The 'Status of the Baltic Legions' subsection could be shortened to 3 sentences, other parts could also be seriously trimmed. Alæxis_¿question? 16:30, 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)

Indeed BBC doesn't call the monument Nazi in the article. So how would you like to reword this sentence? Alæxis_¿question? 09:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure, tbh. Obviously, it should be mentioned, but I cannot think of a good neutral wording, partially because I should be in bed with flu, not at work as I am now... Maybe a separate paragraph or sentence in the lede, along the lines "Many sources regard the monument as controversial or even pro-Nazi^{[1], [2], [3]}, while the supporters of the monument deny such allegations.[9]" --Sander Säde 09:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds nice for me. Alæxis_¿question? 10:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed some words, see my change, what do you think? --Martintg (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with it. Alæxis_¿question? 10:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)