Talk:Estonian War of Independence

message: I need help! I'm currently preparing a set of maps for the Polish-Bolshevik War of 1919-1920, with the sites of the major battles and the frontlines marked. I would also like to include not only the frontlines of the Russo-Polish war, but also the frontlines of the Latvian and Estonian wars with Bolshevist Russia. Could anyone post a link to a map or description of the frontlines? 
The maps I'm working on:
* March 1919
* December 1919
* June 1920
* August 1920
--Halibutt 13:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
: I added a map to the article yesterday. Reimgild 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "aggression of the Baltische Landeswehr" Why is this aggression? So the Landsweer, quite in alliance with local Baltic nationalists, fought against the Bolsheviks, but against this background a conflict broke out between the Germans and local nationalists, but there was no aggression 37.54.230.242 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps of 1919-1920 wars

message: The previous version depicted the Baltic German Landeswehr in June 1919 as the armed force of United Baltic Duchy. This is misleading, because in 1919 German Kaiser Wilhelm and his vassal princes had certainly no role in any political plans of Baltic Germans or anyone else. What general Goltz certainly wanted was to control Latvia through the puppet government of Latvia. And the assumption that he also wanted to conquer the entire Estonia is more a speculation than a fact. Warbola 05:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: conflict with the Landeswehr

message: "decided to push their defense lines across the border into Russia." sounds like a pro-Estonian way of saying advanced into Russia. Isnt any military attack that then fortifies itself considered "moving defense lines?" A clearer way to say it would be: Having expelled the Estonian Bolsheviks, the Estonian nationalist army then advanced into Russia. Rakovsky 09:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: May 1919 offensive

message: The info box oversimplifies what was a very complicated political situation.  As well as fighting the Bolsheviks, Estonians fought Germans of 2 kinds - Reich-Germans and Baltic Germans whose ambitions were not always the same. Then there were the White Russians, with whom the Estonians did not always have good relations.  On should not forget cooperation with Latvian Nationalists, and finally the Western Allies (Britain and France) had influential views of their own. Squeezing this kaleidoscope into two protagonists who sound like "us" and "them" does not do the situation justice. 62.65.192.23 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Main fighting took place between Estonia and the Bolsheviks. White Russians, Latvians and Britain were connected to Estonian Liberation War only as much as they cooperated with Estonian army, otherwise it is practically impossible to draw any line between Estonian Liberation War and Russian civil war. Landeswehr war was quite small sideconflict that lasted only 1 month(and 1/3 of it was cease-fire). Estonian Liberation War started then Soviets attacked Estonia and ended then Estonia and Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic signed peace treaty at Tartu so it clearly was mainly between Bolsheviks and Estonia. Staberinde 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Main fighting in Estonian Liberation War was between Estonians and blosheviks. Lets look at very similar conflict Polish-Soviet War. There was also very complicated situation, not only fighting between Poles and bolsheviks. Poles fought with some Ukrainians and aganist other Ukrainians. Poles had military conflict with Lithuanians. Also poles cooperated with Latvians. French had their own interests there. Czechoslovakia used moment to take over Tešin. And if I remember correctly then even Estonian and Polish troops even met at some moment in Latvia. So situation was similarly(or even more) complicated. But as we can see from wikipedia article about it, it has infobox, as its featured article its probably not considered oversimplifieing there and I do not see any reason to consider it oversimplifieing in Estonian Liberation War. (Staberinde 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info box

message: The title itself isn't POV - it was used even in Soviet books, e.g the War of “Liberation” , that is, in quotation marks. The title had been so widely used, that the Soviets just tried to reduce it to so-called Liberation War etc. But was still used. As for alleged anti-Soviet bias... compare different cases by the same comrades: , , . As we all know, every war, that the USSR waged, was a just war, as comrade Stalin put it. It's a pity, though, that such clear soviet POV warriors have found a place to pursue their propaganda here in wikipedia. Constanz - Talk 08:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV title? But perhaps the Soviet POV is 'POV' for once?

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
#Support as nominator. - Evv 12:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as nominator. - Evv 12:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: Google Print test
*Google Print for "Estonian War of Independence": 11 books.
*Google Print for "Estonian Liberation War": 1 book, mentioning "Another Finnish volunteer force of over 4000 men joined in the Estonian liberation war in late December 1918".
Google Scholar test
*Google Scholar for "Estonian War of Independence": 32 results.
*Google Scholar for "Estonian Liberation War": 0 results.
Amazon.com test
*Amazon.com for "Estonian War of Independence": 6 books.
*Amazon.com for "Estonian Liberation War": 0 books.
Best regards, Evv 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: To all who participated in earlier discussion re War of Liberation vs.  War of Independence. I have my own theory about how this might initially have come about. Estonians and Finns who speak English as an acquired language might simply not have the experience to realize that what Estonians call the "Vabadussõda" - the War of Freedom - is with great consistency called a war of independence in English scholarly and military circles. It is the "going concept" among anglos, if you will. "Vabadus" is freedom in general in Estonian, it sounds nice and lyrical. It is sometimes much less frequently called the iseseisvussõda as well, or at least to say so would be very well comprehended by Estonians - iseseisvus means to stand alone and sovereign, to not be dependent. I figure what may have happened is that a native Estonian most likely started out by writing War of Liberation, not realizing that this has another important connotation in English. Estonians would understand if it were translated back from War of Liberation to Estonian, which would make it a "vabastamissõda", which is a war of liberating or of being liberated. The Brits and Canadians and a host of others helped liberate Nazi-occupied France in WWII. Many Kuwaitis would feel, I suggest, that Americans helped liberate them from Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War. In Iraq, on the other hand, there are probably quite a few locals who don't regard the incursion of coalition forces to topple Saddam as a war of liberation, despite insistences that emanate from the White House. In the case of Estonia, it was indeed a war of emancipation, but essentially a war of self-emancipation. Though Brits were involved, it was not a British but an Estonian operation. Consequently, you'd end up with empty hands if you sought an outside force that liberated the Estonians. The Estonians independently attained their independence and it would have been in error and confusing to leave the unusual and unstandard title of "War of Liberation" above the article in question. The editors got it right in changing it. One final argument: all the Western scholars with proper command of English who have written on the topic (e.g. Toivo U. Raun, author of the authoritative "Estonian and the Estonians" as well as Romuland J. Misiunas and Rein Taagepera in their benchmark work "The Baltic States: Years of Dependence") have used the term "War of Independence". They realized that use of a standard term would make what took place in Estonia universally understandable, and would also help avoid the polemics that finally brought about the very justifiable change in this case from the rather unfortunate "Estonian War of Liberation" to the proper and adequate "Estonian War of Independence".  Sean Maleter 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resumption of comments

message: One very motivated IP editor, 206.186.8.130, recently replaced whole "Prelude to Peace" section with his own variant, which consists of carefully picked sentences from analysis of Royal Navy's operations in Baltics. Although all this seems to be basically correct, I have a feeling that this source has a bit too narrow view to Estonian War of Independence and focuses too much to Britain's politics and actions, leaving out many important events for Estonia, so I'd revert this section fully to it's previous version, maybe using one or two bits from this current version, but I can already see where it could lead us. So, instead of edit warring, your ideas (and no soapboxing, please)? Ptrt (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is not all-encompassing, but it is verifiable (unless previous version, which was written in political leaflet's language and accompanied by unverifiable reference to printed book) and seem to be pretty technical. Exactly the type of analysis all East European articles should be based upon (but rarely are). Not opinionated political propaganda, generated by one of warring sides, but 3rd look, cold and impartial (as it could be, Rushton seem to harbour no warm and fuzzy feelings toward Bolsheviks, which is not a sin here). I'm wondering, is it repeated references to Estonia's readiness to cut separate agreement with Commies to get any kind of recognition which raised an ire of Estonian editors? 206.186.8.130 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with printed sourced, as long as they are from respected authors and respected publications. Yes, online sources are more convenient to verify, but these times it's really hard to find really respectable online source, unfortunately it seems that half of Wikipedia is already sourced with references from online more-or-less yellow media and that's really not a way to build encyclopedia. Your source is cold and impartial analysis, I don't have a word to say against it's impartiality or reliability, but it does not focus to Estonian War of Independence, but to overall British actions in whole Baltics, missing everything not connected with Royal Navy's actions. It's unfortunate that you are unable to discuss without trying to provocate or bait other editors, but I'm replying your question anyway - no, it's not connected, did you manage to read up to that point where is written that Estonia actually reached to agreement with those No Commies and Estonians are even proud about it.. and bringing out Hungarian communist mediation offer could be very well true, but from your source we can't see, what circumstances made them to make such an offer (thinking about the time - I can guess that Hungarian communists were guided directly from Moscow, so that fact actually proves that Russia was seeking for peace negotiations) and why this offer was rejected (yes, Admiral Cowan did threaten to leave - but we can see that in the end on that year peace negotiations started anyway, despite the similar opposition from British forces) Ptrt (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You lightheartedly reject printed source here, but advocate it here. Edits are within 1/2 hour from each other. You did manage to amuse me. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Credits are fully yours, mister: it was you who added that totally unverifiable one-page printed source, without author's full name, without publisher information and then came here to complain about credibility and verifiability of printed sources (which coincidentally has all the required details for verification). And you don't see any difference, do you? Ptrt (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your lack of command of Russian language is understandable, but it does not give you right to bash sources you are unable to read. Author's name is Маамяги, and book (most likely memoirs) had been published by Мысль publisher (big Moscow publisher specializing in literarute dealing with humanity, history, philosophy etc.). 206.186.8.130 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Answered you at Talk:Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian). Ptrt (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Let me remind to unsuspected wikipedians (who may mistake you for white knight keeper of neutrality), that you was perfectly fine with baseless assumptions in the old "Prelude to peace" section, as soon as they painted picture of brave Estonians nobly beating subhuman Red Russians. And you have your gut tied in the knot now, when a professional military analyst makes well argumented assumption (supported by his analysis of previous actions of Estonian government). You want me to explicitly say that this is opinion of professional American military historian, who's area of interest includes 1918-1920 events in regions surrounding Baltic Sea? I'll be happy to do that. And it is just you, as internment of beaten and potentially hostile troops (and Rushton is seemingly unaware of Estonian expropriation of White's supply depots, set by British, if you want me to add this juicy bit too) makes perfect sense. You see, Reds bloodied them well, but they could recover... 206.186.8.130 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RG CJ, your current edits do not reflect what the sources say. There is no conflicting interpretations on the events that lead to the peace treaty. Rauch, an established historian gives a detailed account, while Ruston, a grad student, gives a brief partial account. You attempt to synthesise Rushton's account into something else, going into detail about Estonian's disarming of the White Russians, then jumping into "Each Baltic State began separate negotiations with Bolshevist Russia for peace in the second half of 1919" missing all the detail about how the negotiations were started, which Rauch explains. The only real detail Ruston gives is the mention of the Hungarian communists offering to mediate, Rauch also mentions this too, and adds further details about how the Hungarian communists got involved. These edits of yours are bordering on tendatious. Martintg (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prelude to peace

message: In this  page, it is mentioned that Estonian Army lost 6127 soldiers during the war as dead. (Metsamees (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While it sounds more realistic (bigger numbers of casualties normally are), I could not find a solid source on the internet stating that. The article deserves a more solid source than a speech by the Commander-in-Chief of the Military of Estonia or an article by Postimees. Probably a direct inquiry from the Sõjahaudade Hoolde Liit for a relevant publication is in order. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: There is a glaring error in "References" to the article, pos 4: the years should be 1918--40 (not 1941...). Cf. the vol. 11 of the referred encyclopedia. 
With best wishes
Heido Ots  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.145.76 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error noticed 

message: While Britain provided naval support at the direction of the Estonian high command, the bulk of the conflict was on land between Estonia and the Bolsheviks and the German Landeswehr. There were more Finnish, Latvian and Russian volunteers than Brits in the campaign, they are mentioned in the infobox but we don't include them as formal combatants, the same with Britain. Note that the peace treaty was signed between Estonia and Bolshevik Russia, there was no British signature so Britain wasn't a formal combatant. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't see the units section of the infobox and now know what you mean.ChrisWet (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain in Infobox