Talk:Monument of Lihula

message: Source [2] clearly mentions that monument "showed a soldier in a German uniform with a Waffen-SS (combat SS) unit emblem". But, since source [1] mentions that "The monument... depicts a soldier in a German infantry uniform... This time, however, the SS references on the soldier's uniform were removed." Since these articles are from the same website, I kept both versions in article. DLX, please stop removing references to legitimate sources, even if their reporting is out of sync with your convictions. 206.186.8.130 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stay civil. Those emblems were removed, see :
So, it is obvious that Monument of Lihula, in fact, does not have SS emblems. So, I will remove that claim again. Unless you can find a source stating that they were re-added, please don't put misleading material to the article. If you want, describe it thoroughly - "when in Pärnu, monument had SS symbolics, but those were removed". DLX 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please try not to lecture others when you are involved in selective use of sources bordering on POV. TIA. Same source "Baltic Times" has two conflicting articles. One of which is clearly saying that SS insignia was on  memorial. Unless you provide independent confirmation that insignia had been removed, I'll keep adding both references. 206.186.8.130 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were never removed, because there were no such insignia in the first place.  It was a clear intention by the sculptor, and has been widely reported in the media.  If Baltic Times claims otherwise, it is in error. Digwuren 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we have a choice to believe Baltic Times or user Digwuren, who repeatedly tries to remove any association with Nazi Germany from this article. Would you be so kind to provide sources to support your POV, please? Until then I'll restore article to mention SS insignia. Consider this 1st warning. 206.186.8.130 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where has Digwuren "repeatedly tried to remove any association with Nazi Germany from this article"? He rewrote the lead - and removed more then dubious claim. We have one source stating it has SS symbols, other that it doesn't. I don't know if they existed previously or not, but it is a fact that they are not present in a current statue - see this photo yourself, if you don't believe me. So please stop inserting this claim - especially since you fail to insert info from the other article, which would have made it at least NPOV claim. Oh, and since you insist using threats, consider it a first warning. DLX 05:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for photo. Unfortunately it is quite useless. It clearly shows the left collar and right collar is somewhat shadowed, but one can see there's something on it. SS insignia had been worn on right collar, so it is still quite possible that they're on the figure. Also you wrote "since you insist using threats, consider it a first warning". That sounds especially nice, taking into account your message on my IP's talk page. This warning is 2nd from you. Not that it matter too much. Regarding your NPOV claim. Again, this is a bit of black humor to read NPOV accusations from you after you repeated mention of Waffen SS, but, being a nice guy, I stuck to your source about SS insignia being removed this time around. Are you happy now? 206.186.8.130 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statue NEVER had any SS-signia. IT is a man in German uniform. Just the uniform, no attributes. Police had it investigated for provocing signs.  A scientist concluded that there are no Nazi symbolics, but the statue was too confronting and simply rude. There is no proof anywhere that the statue was altered between postings. After all bronze cast statues are not that easy to alter.--Alexia Death 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Digwuren, could you share your reasons for starting edit war insetad of issuing threats on IP's talk page? TIA206.186.8.130 15:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to German Army (instead of Waffen SS) uniform 

message: Source [1] clearly mentions condemnation of Wiesenthal Center. 206.186.8.130 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to sources by link, not number - latter can and will change. DLX 16:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Wiesenthal Center Condemnation 

message: Needs more sources, better image, in-depth description of controversy (what organisations protested? Individuals?). Section/separate article about the controversial views about WW2 in Estonia (I removed the section "A Question Handling Attitudes towards History", as it was in bad English and didn't point to any sources). --DLX 08:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a good article 

message: This article has very little dates. Is this intentional?--Alexia Death 09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are the dates?

message: I'm OK with Dc76's version, but I think there are couple of relevant moments which fell through the cracks:
1. Whole story of Estonian volunteers participating in Nazi crimes is not just 20.Waffen-Grenadier Division, was it conscription- or volunteer-based. There were Estonian volunteer police battalions and their participation in Nazi's war crimes is well documented.
2. Mayor of Lihula during memorial incident is self-confessed Holocaust denier. I see it as relevant fact. Shouldn't it be included in the "Controversy" section?
Besides, whole Controversy section looks longish to me. It should really just have several points:
:1. Dedication on monument includes Waffen SS soldiers and Estonian volunteers
:2. Not all Estonians who fought against USSR in 1941-1945 were nazis and war criminals.
:3. Monument had been condemned by the number of international groups and organizations.
:4. Estonian government dismissed documents provided by Wiesenthal Center as lies (I'm not sure it really belongs here but it does add nice undertone).
:5. Holocaust denier was the mayor of Lihula during this unfortunate incident.
10 lines at most. What do you think? 206.186.8.130 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's a statement in "Controversy" section about memorial's supporter not approving Nazi policy, I think it would be fair to restore reference to mayor being Holocaust denierBaltic Times April 27, 2005: Looking for the truth behind Lihula by Matthias Kolb 206.186.8.130 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your attempts to glorify Holocaust denial by insinuating -- irrelevantly -- it's a mainstream idea in Estonia are not appreciated.  Do not add unnecessary claims to the article again. Digwuren 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Warning had been added on your talk page for blanking. I was not insinuating that it is mainstream idea in Estonia. I was adding referenced information about Mayor of Lihula being Holocaust denier, which is, in my eyes, extremely relevant in discussion of monument to Wehrmacht and Waffen SS soldiers. At least as relevant as unreferenced statement that "Most supporters of the monument, however, have clearly distanced themselves from the Nazi ideology".  206.186.8.130 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I restore reference to Holocaust-denial book published by Mayor of Lihula. 206.186.8.130 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we don't need any citations regarding Holocaust denial (it's referenced), I'll re-add it tomorrow in order to avoid 3RR rule. I should say that I approve  tag added by Digwuren. Statement about supporters of monument to Nazi collaborators not approving Nazi ideas should be referenced.  206.186.8.130 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious: any such supposed hobbies of the mayor, even if sourced, are irrelevant to the article. Digwuren 17:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Digwuren, link between Holocaust denial and being instrumental in setting up monument to the Nazi collaborators may be not obvious for you. I am of different opinion. 206.186.8.130 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Since mikkalai saw my message on his talk page and chose to remove it without response, I am restoring the part about Lihula's Mayor. 206.186.8.130 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit of Controversy section by Dc76 

message: The museum is 'private' in the sense that it is privately owned.  It is not secret, and it is open to the public.
'Private museum' is most likely a straight translation from Estonian eramuuseum; the accent differences were what led to the confusion.
By the way, the museum has a (badly designed) webpage at . Digwuren 19:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum's privacy 

message: Nikola Smolenski makes an interesting point in .  It is true that the monument has so far never been permanently removed.  I suspect that the original wording of 'removal' was intended to convey the monument's long-term non-exposition following both of the removals.  Which wording would be the best one? Digwuren 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move/relocation 

message: I had been asked to explain a connection. I am at loss here. Both actions are closely related to the same period in history, the same regime. To me the connection is self-evident, if both actions are performed by the same person. And one is highly relevant ot another (again, if we're talking about the same person). So if the Holocaust denier chaired town council which decided to put up the monument, it is relevant. RJ CG 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is about the monument, not the place or the probably nutty mayor. I havent read the book, so I dont know what it is  about exactly. It is not a monument for nazi collaborators. It is "To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence." Whole Finland was a German ally During the time managing to keep the soviet forces out. Should their monuments for Continuation war fallen be called monuments for nazi collaborators as well?--Alexia Death 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) You are making several grave mistakes here:
# The monument was originally put up in Pärnu, not Lihula. Madisson was not a mayor of Pärnu, nor did he order the statue.
# It is not a monument for honoring Nazi collaborators. Perhaps read the dedication once more?
# How is it relevant to the statue that Tiit Madisson (I'd call him a crackpot, tbh) published a holocaust revisionist (not denial) book (btw, your link is to search, here is the correct link) 
Sander Säde 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, just had an idea -  RJ CG, why don't you start an article about Tiit Madisson? He is an internationally known person, with all his coup d'etat attempt in 1996 (for which he was imprisoned), books about holocaust denial/revisionism, freemasonry and other nutty conspiracy theories, controversy surrounding the Lihula monument and so on. There should be plenty of English material for it. Sander Säde 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be plenty of English material for it. You are wrong to think that every crackpot from Estonia deserves international attention. I did brief search and came up mostly with sites like "hiddentruths.com" Comparing to those sources pravda.ru is pillar of impartiality and bottomless source of anti-Communist facts :) www.antisemitism.org.il briefly mentioned him among others. Probably they had no idea he's an elected official in Estonia. Do you want me to notify them?RJ CG 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was, not is. I have no idea what he is doing now, probably just a farmer. Go ahead, if you think that you can do your bit for mother Russia with that. Sander Säde 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: But whether or not there is any direct connection between his alleged views and erection of the monument is just speculation and WP:SYNTHESIS. Martintg 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection between denying a Holocaust and building monuments to Nazi collaborators

message: "The tablet reads: To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence."
"Hitler, however, was hesitant to allow foreign volunteers to be formed into formations based on their ethnicity, preferring that they be absorbed into multi-national divisions. Hitler feared that unless the foreign recruits were committed to the idea of a united Germania, then their reasons for fighting were suspect, and could damage the German cause." - from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts
This article lacks a lot of things, including a demonstration of the historical conflict visible above, when Estonian former SS-members now claim to have fought for the restoration of Estonian independenceback then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.138.209 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler may well have been hesitant about foreign volunteers, however, it is a fact that the majority of Estonian veterans were conscripted. Martintg (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also fact that German draft had been enthusiastically endorsed by the Estonian prime minister in the duties of the president Jüri Uluots, who delivered a radio address that implored all able-bodied men born from 1904 through 1923 to report for military service. This does not sit aprticularly well with "involuntarily draft" loophole, but those are technicalities, right? 206.186.8.130 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Uluots called on young men to assist in restoring Estonian independence in his radio address. Martintg (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals and principles of ww2 Estonian Nazi collaborators 

message: Why is only this formation is described (particularly that it was composed of draftees and not volunteers)? For example Estonian Legion, its predecessor, was initially composed of volunteers. Alæxis¿question? 07:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an area I am overly familiar with, perhaps User:Termer can be more helpful - however, originally men volunteered mostly for border guarding regiments and only 5000 men volunteered to 3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade. In January 1944 there was a general conscription, with 38 000 conscripts drafted for Waffen SS. All this is in those Wiki articles - however, the 38 000 is a weird number, as I thought that 20th Division had roughly 15 000 soldiers. --Sander Säde 07:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The exact numbers are not that important here, my point is that not all those who fought "for Estonia against Soviets" were drafted and some (and not a tiny part) were volunteers. So it's not right to write only about drafted members of Estonian Waffen SS formations in this article. Alæxis¿question? 08:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By far, majority the of the unit members were always conscripts and were treated as such by Nuremberg commission (where they were present as... guards for the Nazi criminals, ). Only 500 to 900 men had volunteered to the legion, 90% of those had lost a relative in the Red Terror. The 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS is described as a conscript unit by all sources I could find (I do know that Russian Foreign Ministry is a sole exception for this, as they like to use the unit in their propaganda). --Sander Säde 09:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In your previous post you've written that 5000 men volunteered for 3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade. Anyway, if the majority of Estonians who served in various Nazi formations (and fought against Soviets) were conscripts and there's a reliable source (western, for example) confirming it I don't have anything against putting it this way in the article. Alæxis¿question? 10:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the difference between 3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade and 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) - and like I said, this is outside my immediate area of interest - you might want to ask Termer or someone else more familiar with the topic. However, right now there are no sources in the material you inserted, please provide them? --Sander Säde 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) 

message: Does anyone have the full version of the article? Is it used as a reference for all preceding statements in the paragraph? Alæxis¿question? 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltiс Times article 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. The sub-section on "Controversies" under the section on "Controversy" sounded especially strange. Looking back at my previous edits, I see that the sub-section used to be named  "Concerns about Nazi glorification", so I restored that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits