Talk:Estonian government-in-exile

message: In essence, the main difficulty throughout the German occupation (and afterwards) was that resistance to the Germans would inevitably be construed as support for Communism and the Soviet Union; while resistance to the Soviets would be construed as support for Nazism. Despite the continued service of diplomats of the Estonian Republic in several countries, there was no Estonian government in exile, in whose name resistance could have been undertaken. There was very little "middle ground".
The fact that there was no government in whose name to fight, because it wasn't a lot of the cabinet that had escaped does not mean there was no government at all. It was not an information era. Information was slow to move.--Alexia Death 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, this is lamest explanation since Monicagate. There was movement of ppl between Estonia and Sweden during German occupation. Would Uluots wanted to set up government in exile, he could do it pretty easily. You can call Comission whatever name you want, but it is not hostile toward Estonia. If report says there were NO government in exile, you can't interpret it's findings in any other way. RJ CG 19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Digwurren has posted an explanation about the start times into the article. Thats good enough for me.--Alexia Death 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S: why dint you do that instead of pasting a half a sentence without dates?--Alexia Death 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A bit late to this, first we had the government underground (Nazi occupation), then restored (post-Nazi evacuation, pre-Soviet belligerent re-occupation), then escaped (only some, as the boat from Sweden developed engine problems, did not make its rendezvous, and most were captured by the Soviets and eventually mostly executed) into exile. PētersV 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ... but yes, not formally recognized; however, the legation in New York continued to issue passports, which were internationally recognized, etc.--so there was both a government in exile and a legation in exile complementing each other. Recognition of continuity (the larger issue) is also a choice of the recognizing powers--which in this case explicitly did not recognize Soviet annexation--as it is of the Estonian nation itself and manifestations of its sovereign authority. Neither a formal government in exile nor recognition thereof is a prerequisite for continuity. As far as I am aware, Russia is the only power to express the "non-continuity" view. PētersV 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No EGE?

message: I've checked the reference cited, and it provides a good deal more insight and information than is currently reflected in the article. This might be a nice quiet corner to do some editing. :-) PētersV 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Started to clean up from memory, left my printouts of sources at work, but it wasn't good enough to save... come next week! PētersV 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Used Termer's source to make enough of a dent. Some, like the boat having engine trouble, was from one of my other sources I don't have handy right now, I'll put in the references Monday or Tuesday. I also sectioned the article to make it easier to maintain and expand sections. Hope this helps! PētersV 07:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The current article is full of idiotical uncompetent statements. These are well sourced? 
Jüri Uluots had nothing to do with this self-styled "committee". He was labelled as nazi collaborator by them. There is a great book, titled "Tõotan ustavaks jääda...", in Estonian, making these issues clear enough. Please see Estonian wikipedia links above (art. 52, second paragraph).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.12.198 (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm away on vacation right now (sources not handy). As I recall, there have always been charges that Uluots was a "collaborator" because he acceded to the Nazi army drafting Estonians to fight against the imminently invading Red Army. This was not a step Uluots took lightly and even in doing so commented that this will probably cause his memory to be vilified--but it was the best step for Estonia to have any chance of holding off the Soviet re-invasion. (This is from non-Estonian "non-nationalist" sources I have read.) The article is well-sourced. PētersV (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Ernst Jaakson, the reason for withholding recognition was the Maurer rivalry splitting the emigre community, hence the USA recognised the consulate instead, rather than taking sides. Martintg (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, I do recall reading something about the U.S. not wanting to take sides. I would definitely work that information into the article. PētersV (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uluots 

message: , please stop edit warring, your change has been reverted so therefore please discuss your proposed change on talk per WP:BRD. As was already explained to you when your change was reverted in the article Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, "This article is about a government, not a state."--Nug (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former country infobox 

message: The Estonian government-in-exile claimed to be the legitimate  state of Estonia when Estonia was part of the Soviet Union from 1940-1941 and after World War Two and when it was occupided by Germany during World War Two. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it did not claim to be "ligament state of Estonia", it claimed to be the government of Estonia after WW2. Governments and states are different things, and this infobox is just not appropriate here. --Nug (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Infobox.  

message: Shouldn't the article also contain a list of acting Presidents (Prime Ministers in the duties of the President)? Or does that information belong somewhere else, and if yes, where?
--Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of acting Presidents? 

message: The article mentions that the government-in-exile was reinstated by some former members after becoming defunct in 1992. This is unreferenced; however, I'm more concerned about whether or not this should be discussed further in the article, especially as the lead section implies that the government-in-exile is defunct. --ElKabong888 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The so called Nõmme Coverment is (or was?) a kind of role playing club. I removed this paragraph. --Klõps (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Do you speak Estonian? Perhaps this article would be of interest to you regarding the subject – I have to translate it and as such cannot fully understand it. --ElKabong888 (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The government-in-exile today?