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

message: This article is messy. needs reworking. Will do ASAP. Meanwhile I just tag it accordingly.--Termer 19:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand you correctly, are you intending to rename this article to something like Estonian National Army Units in WWII? If so, it will be contested, since this article is specifically about the 20th division. I suggest you create a new article rather than modify this one Martintg 12:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: PS, those insignias are real enough, see here:  Martintg 12:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds okay, though I think mention of the identity of the earlier units that were merged into the 20th should be mentioned. Of course these units should have seperate articles. In regard to the insignia, the tri-colour was used, although I have not seen the one with three lions. As for the proposed article Estonian National Army Units in WWII, I think some thought needs to be given on the title, since during WWII there was no actual Estonian National Army in existence since the Soviets disbanded the army and arrested many of the general staff in 1940. Perhaps Estonian Military Units in WWII may be a better title. Martintg 00:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Why is July 6 marked as the anniversary of the division? I haven't heard anything happened on July 6. DJ Sturm (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some newspaper reports indicate veterans hold annual reunions on that date. Martintg (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: July 6

message: recently axishistory.com has been used to overhaul this article and most of the published books used for ref previously have been removed for some reason. I don't think that axishistory.com is a WP:RS exactly, especially compared to the books that were used previously. The main thing is the claim that the Division was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade". The connection was only nominal since the Estonian division was formed out of general conscription call in Estonia unlike the Brigade. Also, the brigade was scattered all over the Eastern front and none of the soldiers were fighting in the territory of Estonia. Unlike after the formation of the division when all those units in the brigade were returned to Estonia and reformed. In any case it's misleading to say that the Division was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade". After all there where what, about 5000 men in the brigade but about up to 70.000 in the division after the conscription call.--Termer (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A cadre is exactly that a group that a military formation is built upon, I think 70,000 is a bit of an exaggeration no division number that many men --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its also mentioned here http://axis101.bizland.com/EstonianFeldpost1.htm and page 34 of The Waffen - SS volume 3
By Gordon Williamson and Stephen Andrew --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

text: PS.Well, the table above you have removed from the article - gives the reader much clearer overview how the division was formed exactly instead of the misleading statements given by the sources you have used. So only that would be a reason good enough to restore the table above. So that the reader could decide how much the Division was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade" exactly once someone want's to claim so.--Termer (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Ok the link you provided here  details the Reorganisation of the division from March 1944, which started with the 4th Battalion of the Artillery Regiment, to have a 4th Battalion you must have 1st , 3nd and 3rd battalions ?  The 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade was formed in December 1943, from the Estonian Legion which was formed on 28 August 1942. Also if you follow the link fron the first commander Franz Augsberger you will see he was the commander of the 3 Estonian Brigade and its mentioned  in his article how it progressed to division status. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: That's fine, we can settle this as a different interpretation of a technicality perhaps. The way I've seen this, the Brigade was simply renamed Division at first and it was just nominal. However, once the Division was actually formed, the units of the former brigade were returned to Estonia and reformed (like you put it Reorganisation) into the division along with the conscripts. There is another thing though. Which probably is also just a technicality: Estonian Legion has been most often used as an umbrella term for Battalion Narwa (SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Bataillon Narwa), and later also the 3rd Estonian Brigade. In January 1944 the 3rd Brigade was renamed the 20the Division and replaced the Estonian Legion which thus ceased to exist..--Termer (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sorry, I have to take this back. I was right all along, The fact is 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS was born on May. 26 1944. The unit name for the renamed Brigade was the '20th Estonian volunteer Division' (20the Estonian SS Freiwillige Devision) that was called so on January 23. 1944. Therefore it' factually incorrect to say that the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade". In fact the 20th volunteer division of the SS was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade". And the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS was the result of the Reorganisation of the volunteer division in Estonia that thereafter, on May 26  became the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian).--Termer (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  axishistory.com 

message: :Talk duplicated in Talk:3rd_Estonian_SS_Volunteer_Brigade#'Nazi collaborators' category. Timurite (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Nazi collaborators' category

message: I've fully protected the article because of the current edit warring. Please discuss any proposed changes on this page and let me or any other admin know if you wish to make consensual edits to the article. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the article back to the version (April 17th) that seems the most stable before the current edit war. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Michaelis has them down as Police in his 1994 book, but Ost-Bataillone in his 2000 and 2006 volumes. Apparently there was also a Ost-Bataillon 660 which was transferred together with the first two on 20 April 1944. --Dodo19 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Battalions 658 and 659 were Eastern Battalions, not Police ones. That's a fact that I think everybody agrees with. DJ Sturm (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Michaelis has them down as Police in his 1994 book, but Ost-Bataillone in his 2000 and 2006 volumes. Apparently there was also a Ost-Bataillon 660 which was transferred together with the first two on 20 April 1944. --Dodo19 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Battalions 658 and 659

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/conclusions.htm
** In Estonian Self-Administration on 2011-03-18 09:14:38, 404 Not Found
** In German occupation of Estonia during World War II on 2011-03-19 23:07:19, 404 Not Found
** In German occupation of Estonia during World War II on 2011-03-22 04:39:09, 404 Not Found
** In History of Estonia on 2011-03-29 13:43:00, 404 Not Found
** In History of the Jews in Estonia on 2011-03-30 03:57:09, 404 Not Found
** In Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia on 2011-04-08 23:36:11, 404 Not Found
** In Johannes Soodla on 2011-05-14 03:36:31, 404 Not Found
** In 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) on 2011-06-19 05:22:43, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?menyy_id=99&kateg=43&alam=61&leht=4German
** In Estonia in World War II on 2011-03-18 09:13:24, 404 NOT FOUND
** In 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) on 2011-06-19 05:23:09, 404 NOT FOUND
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Streamline infobox; c/e; npov; unneeded piping; excessive intricate detail; reduce "See also" - red link / already linked in the article; tag". I also removed non RS / questionable sources not used for citations. Please let me know of any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: The division participated in mass executions and repressions in Belarus, this should be mentioned somewhere in the article.Miacek  (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? The division never set foot in Belarus. --Vihelik (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I mixed up the division with its forerunner the 3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade whose "heroic deeds" in Belarus are notorious.Miacek  (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes in Belarus 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "undue as not all were conscripts". The cadre of the unit were volunteers. Further, the 1950 declaration, at the dawn of the Cold War, is hardly authoritative. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: POV, reverted. I don't think it is up to a single Wikipedia editor to decide whether an official position of the US government is authoritative or not, especially if the declaration still forms one of the cornerstones between the US and the Baltics (e.g., affecting decisions on immigration, citizenship application etc.). You may be right that not all were conscripts, but it's an issue you should take up with the State Department. --Vihelik (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I have restored text with a reference. Please use cite tag in future rather than delete without warning, it is just a common courtesy. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2019 edit 

message: I’ve reverted this edit by . There was extensive discussion on this talk page above at #Klooga_incident, about the alleged involvement of the 20th division in the killings and the Birn reference used to support that. The conclusion was that in light of other sources there is no conclusive evidence that the training unit of 20th division (while located near the camp) was involved in the killings. —Nug (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The source (an article in an academic journal) states "The final acts of liquidating the camps, such as Klooga, which involved the mass-shooting of roughly 2,000 prisoners, were committed by Estonians under German command, that is by  units of the 20.SS-Division and (presumably) the Schutzmannschaftsbataillon of the KdS". The author of the article, Ruth Bettina Birn, is also clearly an expert on this topic. As such, this material seems fine. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the source Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (see p737), after post-war investigation of the Klooga killings, the War Tribunal of the Leningrad Military District convicted 11 members of the 3rd company of the 287th Police Battalion for the killings and they were sentanced to 25 years jail in July 1951. So Birn is almost correct, the Schutzmannschaftsbataillon were involved but not the 20th Division. --Nug (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, you're trying to dismiss a reliable source. If different reliable sources say different things, we need to cover both accounts. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is more reliable (and thus carry more weight), a 2006 International Commission that reported the Soviet investigation (which included members of the 20th Division), trial and conviction of those men who actually were involved in the Klooga killings, or the 2001 claims by a German academic based on what? Birn did not cite any Soviet Military Tribunal records in her paper. --Nug (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sources are reliable, so both positions need to be included in the article. That is how WP rolls. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not per WP:FALSEBALANCE. The Soviets interrogated both members of the 20th Division and the 287th Police Battalion, and ended up finding members of the 287th guilty of that crime. Obviously Birn was unaware of that fact, otherwise she would have cited it in her paper--Nug (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not false balance. How do you know they investigated the right members of the division, or that members of the division refused to give evidence against each other? Or that there were political reasons for the prosecution decisions? Or that the guilty members of the division hadn't been killed? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely if there was some political purpose the Soviets would have convicted at least one 20th Division member (even in absentia), but they did not. The source Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity examined the Soviet investigation of the Klooga killings and appear to concur with the Soviet finding that the 287th Police Battalion were responsible, and thus having listed the 287th as guilty of war crimes in their final conclusion. --Nug (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that speculating about what a certain source means is OR. A reliable source says that members of the division massacred prisoners, so that goes in the article, along with the version from the commission. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no equivalance between an evidence based legal proceeding conducted 6 years after the events that made a finding of fact that 11 members of the 287th were involved in the Klooga killings and the opinion (not an alternative fact) of a German academic expressed 65 years after the events that somebody else did it. WP:FALSEBALANCE very much applies. --Nug (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you add the material you are referring to, to the article. Both Nick and I consider the Birn information needs to stand. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed. I'd note that the results of Soviet-era investigations are (obviously) not reliable though. The post-communism Estonian commission is presumably reliable. I'm deeply unimpressed with the repeated references above to Birn being German - this seems to be some kind of lazy slur. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't "obvious" why a particular Soviet era war crimes trial would not be reliable, afterall they participated in the Nuremberg Trials that determined the 20th Division was a conscript formation. No slur intended, had Birn been from the Soviet Union I would have said Soviet Historian. --Nug (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klooga incident, revisited 

message: Müller says all volunteers were forced to leave, Mitchem say all troops who wanted to remain were released. They both can't be right. --Nug (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we compare and contrast the sources, which is what we do when they conflict. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. So how do we handle the case when more than a dozen sources (listed above in #Volunteer_or_conscript?) state that the Division was expanded with conscripts, and the two sources Müller and Mitchem that say it was expanded with volunteers? At what point do we consider there are sufficient sources  in agreement that we can use wiki voice to describe some event?. Or do we continue to say, as a rough example, "Most sources say up to 38,000 concripts(with a dozen refs appended), Müller says 30,000 volunteered(with Müller ref) and other source says 15,000 volunteered(with Mitchem ref)... "? --Nug (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well first you'd need to convince us that the sources you have listed actually say what you claim. I have Keegan, for example, and he does not say what you are suggesting. What he says is much more nuanced than that, and essentially goes to the difficulties the German recruiters were having by this stage of the war, along with their Baltic helpers. I suggest you provide quotations from all of those sources you claim support the contention that the division was brought up to strength with conscripts, and make sure you provide a bit of context as well around each quote. I'm happy to provide the quote from Mitcham, and I'm sure  will provide a quote from Müller. What must be taken into account in this whole discussion is the fact that many volunteers from Schuma battalions and Estonian police battalions were absorbed into the division via the Legion, brigade and other units like the Narwa battalion, and there were a significant number of other units raised at the same time as the brigade was expanded into the division, such as the six frontier guard regiments raised in February 1944 (and therefore probably mostly made up on conscripts), each of which had three battalions. If we assume 500-man battalions (which is reasonable), the frontier guard regiments alone would add up to 9,000 men. Add to them the five construction battalions raised in April and May 1944 (again likely to be manned with conscripts), say another 2,500 for them. That's 11,500 potential conscripts absorbed outside of the division, not to mention any conscripts that went to the home guard. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitcham says: Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

text: That's fair, I'll collate the quotes here in due course. In the mean time, you may be interested in the composition of the Division shown in the table in #Formation_of_the_Division, which is sourced from the Estonian History Commission report. --Nug (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that is clearly wrong, at least in part. I can tell you from the experience of researching and writing four FAs on non-Germanic SS divisions, plus Mitcham, and Thomas and Jurado, that the frontier guard regiments were definitely not part of the division, and the suggestion that they were makes me concerned about the source. No divisional headquarters would have been made responsible for nine regiments, it is far too big a span of command, and would be unprecedented in modern warfare. Nine regiments would be manageable for three divisional headquarters. The frontier guard regiments were clearly under HSSPF control like the Schuma battalions/Estonian police battalions (prior to their transfer to the division) and the Home Guard/Omakaitse, and not part of the Waffen-SS, let alone the division itself. I should add to the discussion that Thomas and Jurado say that 1,800 Estonians who had fought with the Finnish 200th Infantry Regiment also joined the division in August 1944, these would all have been volunteers, because it was on that basis that they went to Finland in the first place. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed. One of the points of confusion seems to be an assumption that all the Estonians who joined the military (by whatever means) were posted to this division. This wasn't the case, as there were other "Estonian" units active at this time. Müller states (on p. 168) that the the "Estonian" units formed in 1944 included this division as well as an unspecified number of "frontier guard regiments", and that there were a total of 60,000 Estonians fighting alongside the Germans at this time. On p. 169 he states that "about 5,000 Estonians fought in the Wehrmacht, 20,000 in the Waffen-SS, another 20,000 in the SS frontier guard regiments, 9,000 in Schutzmannschaft and police battalions and several thousand in self-defence and other units", and total Estonian fatalities in combat alongside the Germans were 15,000. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

text: By my count, at the time this division was forming (January to August 1944) there were still 18 separate Estonian police battalions (some of which were later folded into the division at some point) and a similar number of Home Guard/Omakaitse battalions, none of which were ever part of this division. If they were all 500-strong units, we are talking about 18,000 troops just to staff these non-divisional battalions, let alone provide replacements for them. On top of that, we probably have 11,500 in other non-divisional troops like the frontier guard regiments (perhaps as high as 20,000) and construction battalions, plus replacements. Of the approximately 69,000 Estonian men that were part of German forces according to Thomas and Jurado, including at least 5,000 in the civil police, this is a significant proportion who had nothing to do with the division at all. I agree that there seems to be some sort of tacit assumption about all Estonian units (and conscripts) being part of this division, which clearly isn't right. Also, when the call for mobilisation went out, some of the men that came forward that were absorbed by the division that must have been volunteers. When you add them to the men that had already volunteered for units that were absorbed into the division, there must have been a lot of volunteers that served in the division. Clearly there were quite a lot of conscripts as well, especially after the late 1944/early 1945 rebuild, but to try to represent this as a conscript division is obviously wrong. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 11:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: An SS training and reinforcement battalion with over 9,000 men allocated? A battalion structure could train about 500-600 every two to three months at the absolute most, and only achieve the most basic level of recruit training, with no real infantry skills being imparted. No battalion commander would be allocated that many men to train, and even if they were it could only be done over a three year period. There is something truly screwy with these numbers. Also, "registering for the military" is completely different from being conscripted. The former could mean a combination of volunteers and conscripts. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that's a typo, on page 928 it describes the 20th Training and Reserve Units (SS-Ausbildungs und Ersatzeinheiten 20) which comprised of the 20th SS-Grenadier Reserve Battalion and the 20th SS-Grenadier Training Regiment. The men from the Finnish 200th Infantry Regiment were assigned there when they joined, and you would expect them to be hardened soldiers by that time, so maybe the training was abbreviated, maybe it was a bucket where they assigned new recruits before distribution to the Division, I don't know. Would need to investigate further. FWIW, The 658th, 659th and 660th Estonian Police Battalion mentioned in the Jurado source is called the 658th, 659th and 660th Eastern Battalions by the Estonian History Commission report which states they were subordinated to the Wehrmacht, while the 286th, 288th Police Battalions, etc were subordinated to the Order Police. --Nug (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Even a regiment of three battalions each of four companies would have taken a year to train that many men. The existing "Eastern" battalions were retitled "Estonian Police" battalions in January 1943, and the 286th and 288th Estonian Police Battalions were raised in March 1943 and November 1943 respectively, and were disbanded in December 1944 and captured in September 1944 respectively. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 13:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that assuming all were raw recruits? Recall the Soviets had disbanded the Estonia Army in 1940, and we don't know what proportion of these drafted men were former soldiers, presumably the Waffen-SS had first preference in choosing from the pool of 38,0000 men. The 1944 mobilisation also explicitly called up former Estonian Army officers under 60 and former NCOs under 55 years of age, and in that figure of 9157 included 131 officers and 412 NCOs. With regard to the Police Battalion issue, Jurado calls it the 658th Eastern/Estonian Bn in the caption to the photo of Alfons Rebane on page 8 and McNab in ‘’Hitler’s Elite: The SS 1939-45’’ on page 340 calls them the Estonian 658th-660th East Battalion. But this is just a nit pick, otherwise I think your additions to the article are pretty good. --Nug (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got mixed up above, the Schuma battalions became Estonian police battalions, and the East/Eastern battalions became Estonian battalions. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Müller and Mitchem 

message: There is quite a lot of uncited operational details in the article at present. I'm guessing that this was added from non-RS like axishistory in the dim dark past. In the hope of getting this article to Milhist B-Class at least in the short-term, I propose trimming this down to the basic outline provided in Thomas and Jurado. It can always be expanded in the future if someone gets their hands on detailed sources about the fighting. Any objections? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that. It would be awesome if the article eventually achieved GA. --Nug (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited operational details 

message: "The Nuremberg tribunal ruled that the 30,000 Estonians who had served in the Baltic Legions were conscripts, not volunteers, and defined them as freedom fighters protecting their homelands from a Soviet occupation and as such they were not true members of the criminal Waffen SS.[42]"
Response: The Nuremberg tribunal included Soviet representatives and they would never have agreed [as in the referenced "tribunal ruling"] to the above wording re "[Estonains] protecting their homelands from a Soviet occupation"!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.126.66 (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following excerpt doesn't make sense 

message: There is a video about the 6621 at the trials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcEFnGeZ6A 2600:6C67:1C00:300:F5D1:2C9:FC32:A890 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  War-trial guards