Talk:Battle of Narva (1944)

message: From the section 6-24 March: Simultaneous pitched battles took place north from the town, where the 14th Rifle Corps supported by the artillery of the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps attempted to re-establish a bridgehead. precedes The two Estonian regiments repulsed the attacks causing great losses for the Soviets. -- suggest changing this to The two Estonian SS regiments or The two Estonian regiments of the 20th SS Division just to clarify a bit as the Soviet Estonian rifle corps is mentioned in the preceding sentence. W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit made. W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  mild confusion 

message: Why was the word occupation removed from the section Soviet occupation/regime? Is the fact that Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1944, really debatable? DJ Sturm (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lauri Mälksoo, the greatest authority on the legal aspects of the Soviet regime in the Baltics, uses the terms occupation and annexation combined to denote the Soviet regime. Occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive, meaning that after a territory is annexed, it cannot be occupied anymore. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Not true, Mälksoo uses the term illegal annexation, as subsequent to the occupation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Just read the lead section of the article you're linking to: ...annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state that tries to make its move legitimate... That it's organized de jure says nothing about legality in general (in most cases, it's legal for the benefactor and illegal for the donor). It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism  or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. makes it closer to the opposite, actually. --Illythr (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "Occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive, meaning that after a territory is annexed, it cannot be occupied anymore." I think you meant "after a territory is annexed, it cannot be considered as occupied anymore". That would be correct, had the annexation of the Baltic states been legal and de jure recognized by majority of foreign states. In actuality, the Mälksoo's point is that Soviet domination did have some traits of occupation (he calls it "occupation sui generis"), and that fact provided a ground for speaking about the Baltic states continuity (see, after reading the Mälksoo's book I had to modify my point of view on the subject). Therefore, it is correct to say that the primary term describing the period of the Soviet dominance should be "annexation" (more precisely, "illegal annexation"), although the usage of the term "occupation" cannot be completely ruled out.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet occupation

message: These paragraphs also appear on the articles Tartu Offensive and Tallinn Offensive and were added by user:Erikupoeg.  I did copy edits on all three articles recently.  Do you think these paragraphs are out of place on these articles?  Should they be removed, or improved?  Diannaa TALK 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section is somewhat irrelevant to these topics. Of course all those battles/offensives contributed to the start of the second Soviet occupation, but the topic is better handled in a separate article, with only mention or "see also" in such articles. --Sander Säde 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the section to address the following concern posted on this talk page by user W.B. Wilson: " The section "Aftermath" takes pains to point out the existence of an Estonian government in exile, but unless I missed it somewhere fails to simply point out that one of the most significant aftermaths was a resumption of Russo-Soviet domination of Estonia for some 45 years." I don't think a simple "See also" will do. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did look for the rationale on the talk page, but failed to spot it. Thanks for clearing that up. Diannaa TALK 16:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annexation of Estonia 

message: 2.4 times more casualties on the Soviet side than participants! My congratulation to Estonian propagandists! --Shervinsky (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Casualties are counted for the six-month duration of the campaign while strength is not. Hence, your calculation proves nothing. That said, the article is open for casualty estimates from RS. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Did you read the footnote in the infobox? You are welcome to improve that and suggest alternative RS. The Russian Wiki article is not one as it covers only the 7 days of Narva Offensive (July 1944) while this article spans for 7 months.  --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Regarding 2.4 times more casualties on the Soviet side than participants, well my car has 4 tires, but it's certainly possible to replace one 10 times over seven months if I keep on irreparably damaging them. --Nug (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: In this case, the period is seven months during which the casualties was two times the amount of strength. I can see this is unusual but plausible. That said, I repeat that this article is open for alternative casualty estimates as long as they are based on scholarly research. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants vs. casualties on Soviet side 

message: hey, I'm looking credible source from the Axis side particularly the 11th ss pioneer battalion. I was doing research about the last name schimpf because way down the road that used to be my families last name until one of the two brothers moved to the united states and Americanized its spelling it shimp. well back to the point i ran a crossed many but one stuck out to me A schimpf whom was in the 11 ss pioneer battalion and died in this battle on July 17th or 1944 trying to hold Narva if you could email me or send me to a place with any info that be great. again i didn't get much info and i tried finding where i saw this info ad could never find it again so please if anyone is better at researching things than me please do try!
Email: tshimp062999@gmail.com
Militaryhistorian (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, as far as I am aware the battalion was officially called SS-Pionier-Bataillon 11 and it was indeed active in the Narva front as part of the 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland. The date you mention, 17 July was a few days before the main Battle of Auvere and Narva Offensive (July 1944) but of course a pioneer troop could have been engaged in preparation for the anticipated action. I think all the sources we have on these operations can be found in the references. In addition, there is a recent thesis. I am afraid that is all I have. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey looking for more about this particular battle  

message: Preserving here by providing this link. The edit removed Richard Landwehr (link speak for itself) and Tieke, whose Tragedy of the Faithful was published by the "notoriously pro-Wehrmacht", in the words of one historian, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tieke, Landwerh, etc. 

message: The article uses conjecture and the justification of the casualty estimates is really just conjecture rather than actual reports  . 2401:4900:5998:2EAA:AD1D:393C:E115:9D46 (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjecture