Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 1

message: There were NO BATTLES in Tallinn since last Germans left the city on the afternoon of 21st September 1944 and the first Soviet forces arrived to Tallinn on the morning of 22nd September. There was even independent pre-war goverment restored just before Soviets arrived and Estonian flag was waving on the Tall Hermann tower (one of the symbols of Tallinn and Estonia, has the same meaning for Estonians as The Tower Of London has for Britons). The flag was later that day shot down with machine gun by Soviets and replaced with the red flag. This symbolizes start of the Soviet occupation, which lasted until 1990s. 
All the members of Estonian government, who didn't manage to escape to the west, were - of course - killed by Soviets. So much about the "liberation". 
84.50.11.236 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the war, the living standard of Estonia was higher than in Finland. Now Estonia is 15-25 years behind. Give us back our living standard and you'll get your plants. 84.50.11.236 12:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do Estonians really believe that German Army left Tallinn of its own will and not because of prior war battle victories of the Soviet Army? If not in Tallinn itself, but in the vicinity of it? The present official position of current Estonian Government is mere politics and should not be followed by Wikipedia. Leonid Dzhepko 09:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that there were no battles in Tallinn and there was no liberation since the city belonged to Estonian government at that time, not to Germans. 84.50.11.236 12:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What can one have against burying dead soldiers from under a bus stop to a war cemetery? And the Bronze Soldier as a tombstone for them should also move with them, because it has no meaning without them. 84.50.11.236 12:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is very uneven, it contains both pro-Estonian and pro-Russian bias. Pro-Russian bias especially needs to be checked as it's clear from multiple Youtube footage that it was indeed a riot and not an act of civil disobedience. Please note that the Russian-language version of this entry on WP is much more temperate and to the point. It even includes a quote from Zhirinovsky (!) in support of the actions of Estonian government. If massive damage to property is the way the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia is trying to make itself heard, then they don't deserve anything but punitive action. The fact that Putin's government is reacting strongly is mind-boggling, considering that Putin's platform is based on 'law and order'. This is shameful to me as a Russian.
Huh?! When activists of "orange revolution" throw stowns and Molotov's cocktails in a local police squads on a territory of some former Soviet republic, it is called "fighting for freedom". When Russian minorities do the very same things, it is called "looting". Are you ashamed to live in Russia? Leave Russia. 86.102.223.129 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Tallinn? 

message: "Public opinion polls, however, show that the majority of the Estonian population is against displacement of the monument." Can anyone please cite citate it, otherwise it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.10.181 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 April 2007
:: This is clearly not true and should be removed. 213.35.186.118 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Should the Bronze Soldier be removed" (Estonian: "Kas pronkssõdur tuleks Tõnismäelt ära viia?") . 85% supported the removing of the statue (just a personal note: I was against it, I supported the idea of making it into WWII memorial - adding additional statues of soldiers from other countries involved in WWII) DLX 09:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What opinion polls 

message: Here are some links to YouTube videos of the protests. Taken from the this Eesti Päevaleht page:
-- Petri Krohn 01:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur videos from April 26, 2007 protests 

message: As can be seen, most of the references are from pro-Russian sites trying to show themselves as victims of the Estonian government. In fact, the situation is quite the opposite: I live in Tallinn and tonight, angry Russian-speaking drunk youths and drug addicts literally devastated the city centre, looting shops and drinking right on the streets. They were not mourning, they were glad and laughing! Sorry for the offtopic; however, it seems that this article in its present form is not neutral but has a strong pro-neo-stalinist bias in certain points. I call for balanced account of all events and removal of several links to http://www.bronze-soldier.com, which is a biased site (look yourself and you can see that this is a campaign site!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.224.69 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 27 April 2007
:This article is about the campaign to save the statue. (As well as the Estonian Governmets campaign to demolish it.) The statue itself is not spectacular, maybe just worth an article, but not the subject of international news. -- Petri Krohn 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In case you did not know: Estonian government wants to relocate the monument. Not to demolish it.Warbola 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the official Russion reaction is relevant. Anyone can draw his own conclusions from reading the quite unbalanced statements made by the Russian parliament. Bondkaka 10:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you definitely believe what they say? You have no idea, how much have they lied about our country(Yes, I am Estonian). I would suggest that this article should be started again from scratch, because it has been definitely messed up by Russian propaganda machine. I would personally not recommend using any Russian sources when writing about anything related to Estonia. --Tarmo Tanilsoo 13:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the aggressive statements made by the Russian Parliament don't need any further comment as they are indeed very unbalanced, and even threatening a small neighboring country; as such, the statements are destructive and only make mockery of the Russians who support them. --Bondkaka 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on on this page?? 

message: I do not know if this has anything to do with improving the article, but I will try to answer one of your questions: the issue of place and relocation. Post-Soviet atheists do not have churches or other places of worship. The Great Patriotic War memorials are the closest Soviet people had to places of worship. Now, places of worship can not be "relocated". Dismantling them amounts to demolition. If it was that easy, Israel would "relocated" the Al-Aqsa Mosque to Ramallah (or where ever) long ago. -- Petri Krohn 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just about the most ridiculous goalpost-moving I've seen in my life. First, classifying Orthodox Russians as atheists simply because the Soviet regime was officially atheistic is completely unwarranted, and assuming that secularists need "places of worship" is ridiculous. The Al-Aqsa mosque is geographically bound because of alleged divine miracles having taken place there. Second, grave sites aren't geographically important unless they actually contain the remains of those being honored or mourned. None of the allegedly buried soldiers died in situ, but were transported there in order to make a political statement. If the monument and the remains are relocated to a cemetery, then the mourning must by definition be made there, because the site in Tõnismägi has nothing to do with either the demise of the soldiers or their earthly remains. Of course, this assumes the monument is a site of mourning, instead of a totem pole symbolizing the "liberation" of Tallinn. If the latter is the case, "Post-Soviet atheists" can go on their secular Hajj in Russia, where such monuments truly represent the defense of their homeland. The existence of such a symbol on foreign soil, soil which was most certainly not liberated, is an affront. Moving the remains and the memorial to a cemetery removes all political flavorings from it, leaving only the fallen dead to mourn. Unigolyn 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Next you'll be telling us that Wembley Stadium was a "place of worship" and couldn't be removed lest it anger football fans or people who really liked Freddy Mercury. O Lord, the rioting that could have caused (but didn't). The civilized world does not consider secular symbols sacrosanct, regardless of your Neo-Stalinist ramblings. Unigolyn 00:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "civilized" I suppose you mean "Christian". Yes, Christians make a distinction between "secular symbols" and "religious symbols"; only the later can in their teminology be "sacrosanct". Atheist on the other hand do not have a concept of "religious symbol". So please do not make interpretations based on your obviously Christian beliefs on what othert people of different denominations may or may not consider sacrosanct. -- Petri Krohn 01:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I'm a lifelong staunch atheist, and you're confusing me with a Christian? (Sacro)Sanctity is a mystical, religious concept that assigns non-material value to places and things based not on symbolism derived from material sources (remains, historical events) but faith-based claims. A battlefield can be "sacred" in a secular sense, the bones of fallen warriors likewise, but arbitrary locations cannot possibly be rationally argued to be sacred just because you placed a tchotchke there and really really believe that this makes the aforementioned arbitrary location super special. It's not me who's introducing religious concepts to secular matters, it's you with your fringe-belief "place of worship" theory. Unigolyn 03:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original poster has a valid point. The monument is definitely something close to a religious symbol to the WWII Soviet veterans in Estonia. A specially-built structure that is claimed to hold human remains and that serves as a gathering place for rememberance and worship. This is identical to churches, mosques, stupas, pagodas, etc. It is also undeniable that a great number of Soviet veterans born between WWI and WWII are in fact atheists and rely on Soviet history and Stalinist ethics as the guide to life questions. I doubt, however, that this is the meaning of the monument for the younger generation of ethnic Russians. It seems that it served more as a reminder of who was the boss. Perhaps a compromise could have been achieved by removal of the statue of the soldier and replacing it with a non-military monument recognizing positive contributions of Russian minority to Estonian culture. This monument could still be a gathering place for the Russian-speaking minority. However, in the present state of controversy this is highly unlikely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rombaba (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of worship 

message: I think this section could benefit from any additional information regarding Russian/former soviet discrimination enduring in Estonian.  This may be a root cause of the conflict revolving around the statue, which would justify inclusion into the article.  Would anyone be opposed to that idea if proper sourcing was provided? Donny417 14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some addresses to get you started - Museum of Occupations, Exhibition of Deportations. Also, Wikipedia has History of Estonia#Period of Soviet and German_occupation DLX 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonian civil rights 

message: Would be helpful if someone could add some information about the actual monument - it almost looks that a massive tomb. --Camptown 14:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tomb? 

message: Shouldn`t THIS be included into the article (particularilly under the subchapter containing Russia`s political reaction), as a very very very pertinent mirror-example??? HERE is the response to that event from the very European Parliament and some pictures from there. Note: the cemetery contains not only Romanian soldiers, but also German and Swedish, over which the Russian army-backed Transnistrian goverment wants to build... guess what... an "obelisc" dedicated to the Soviet Soldier... Bucur 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, irrelevant, unlike this. DLX 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A government supported by Russia is not necessarily a government controlled by Russia.  Israel doesn't always do what the US wants it to either.  So no, I'm not sure you can say that that violation by the Transnistrian government can be blamed directly on the Russian authorities. Esn 19:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE ARTICLE 

message: This sentence has come and gone: It is widely (and probably incorrectly) thought to be modeled on Estonian wrestler and 1936 Belin Olympic hero Kristjan Palusalu. The speculation seems popular on the internet, but is it true? Camptown 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it. I have lived in Estonia all my life, but none of the opinions i have heard on the model for the statue have referred to Palusalu. So, it is certainly not "widely believed". --82.131.12.35 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen pictures of the Kristjan Palusalu, and there are indeed some great similarities... Anyway, do you know who was the architect and sculptor of the monument? Camptown 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Palusalu was certainly not the model, because although he was mobilized to red army, it was against his will and he deserted. Soviets would never have allowed to model the statue after someone with this kind of background. 84.50.11.236 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, the face of the Bronze Soldier is not a slavonic face. Definitely, the model wasn't a Russian. I think any Russian looking at the monument feels that the face is not the face of a Russian. I'd rather believe that is is a face of an ethnic Estonian. I would say that it is an Estonian dressed in Soviet Army uniform. Please note though that I am Russian and live in Moscow and I have never been to Estonia. Leonid Dzhepko 08:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a Muscovite as well, and a Russian. However, I fail to spot any particularly non-Russian traits in the visage of the soldier. Granted, the features are very slightly Mongoloid, but the Soviets used to avoid the classical Nordic look not to be associated with Germany. Then again, the Estonians aren't Mongoloid either. Speaking of Slavic faces, there is no such thing. For instance, Bulgarians are more similiar to the Greeks, whereas Belarusians tend to look like their Baltic neighbours. The difference is drastic.Humanophage 10:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modeled after an Estonian wrestler? 

message: It would be interesting to know, what is the "language police", referred in the article? Are there any citations for this statement, seems a bit harsh: "Russian speaking schools are being shut down and a “language police” enforces a policy of Estonian only". → Aethralis 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian propaganda. EvilAlex 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's total bullshit. There's no such thing as language police. Also, no schools are being shut down. 84.50.11.236 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is perfectly illustrative of the general level of hysteria emanating from the Russian propaganda machine. Someone on the BBC website recently claimed that Russians aren't allowed to speak Russian in public! They obviously haven't been to the Central Market or Balti Jaam. The only language restrictions are for holding public office, where fluency in the official language is a requirement (not that this stops certain politicians from speaking Russian in local council meetings, which is their prerogative). I guess this can Chinese Whispers itself to "Can't speak Russian in public". Unigolyn 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Some years ago I read an article about the Estonian educational system, and then, there were plans to integrate the Russian speaking schools in the Estonian school system, ultimately making a uniform Estonian speaking system. What happened to theses plans? Camptown 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Government-funded schools are indeed slowly migrating to Estonian language, but no independent schools are being shut down. 84.50.11.236 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language police?