Talk:History of Estonia

message: I think the sense of this period is not clear: "Historians see the lack of any bloodshed after a nearly "700-year German rule" as indication that it must have been mild by comparison." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.8.168 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Independence section, paragraph four: "Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (...) agreed to divide up the countries situated between them (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland)". It is not clear in which way the countries mentioned above are between Germany and Russia, when Germany, at present, borders only with one of them (and three at the times the pact was signed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The division was part of the "Secret Clause" of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Hitler and Stalin; Germany was to have the western part of Poland while the Soviet Union was to have the eastern part and a free hand with the Baltics and Finland. A look a the map will show how the former lay between Germany and the Soviet Union; Finland was percieved by Stalin as a possible route of attack particularly against Leningrad, which is why the Russian areal demands (the rejection by Finland of which led to the Winter War) included part of the Isthmus of Karelia and the large islands of the Gulf of Finland.--Death Bredon 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications needed 

message: Estonia's responsibility for its actions in World War II and the Holocaust have largely been ignored or muted in favor of arguments against the policies of the Soviet Union. I have noticed in many articles (not to mention the media) about Estonia its participation is rarely mentioned, as with the other Baltic States.
--RPlunk 00:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "It" (i.e., Estonia) was occupied by USSR an Germany after 1940. It was not possible for Estonia as a state to participate in, or to be responsible for, any actions in the Holocaust. The actions of any individual Estonians collaborating with the Soviet or German occupation regimes is a different topic. I hope you are able to sense the difference. Cheers, --3 Löwi 08:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is entitled History of Estonia, not the History of the Government of Estonia.  The country of Estonia is the people of Estonia; therefore the actions of some citizens of Estonia does belong in an article about the history of Estonia and its people.  The article on the history of France mentions French collaboration with the Germans; logically Estonian collaboration with the Germans should be mentioned as well.  A possible solution, as you suggest, are new articles dealing with groups of Estonians collaborating with the Soviets and the Germans. Thanks for your response.--RPlunk 16:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the note, Goodoldpolonius2. Your quoted source, regrettably, is erroneus. For the Jews in question (or most other Estonians for that matter) it would have been near-impossible to flee to the West from Soviet-controlled Estonia in 1940-41. Some may have done so before the beginning of the Soviet occupation of Estonia (in June 1940), but most Jews fled from Estonia to the East, i.e., to USSR-proper, after the German invasion in June 1941. As a courtesy, if you are interested in more detail, please have a look at the Holocaust section in this document, which contains the conclusions of the so far most authoritative and comprehensive international commission’s investigation of WW2-period crimes against humanity in Estonia.  Regards, --3 Löwi 20:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good link, thank you. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your work.--RPlunk 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Role in World War II & the Holocaust

message: I think it's non-constructive and can lead to biases, and claims of biases, to have electing Päts to be the last item of the timeline of 'Independent Estonia'.  Instead, the timeline should end in the more important events of the independence's loss; probably starting from the Treaty of the Russian Military Bases, and ending with the first annexation into the Soviet Union. Digwuren 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Päts ending the timeline of Independent Estonia? 

message: Am I correct in assuming that it only would have been possible for normal Estonians to travel to the West again in 1990? 
Lenbrazil 01:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Soviet occupation emigration and travel to the West

message: The map of 'Livonian Confederation 1260' strikes me as bogus.  I can't really place my finger on anything specific yet, but the borders do not resemble what I recall, and I also have a feeling of anachronism.
What is the source of the map? Digwuren 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked a few other sources, and I withdraw my objection for now. Digwuren 10:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus map? 

message: Modern Estonian propagation approves, that these "договоры" have been accepted in conditions of " the Soviet occupation ". It is necessary to specify that the Estonian nazis wrongfully use the term "occupation" since input of armies according to the contract and with the consent of the government of the country into which armies are entered, occupation is not.--Jaro.p 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling those who edit this article "Estonian nazis" clearly illustrates Jaro.p is being abusive. Martintg 12:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The former Soviet official view, increasingly shared by current Russian nationalistic circles, was that Estonia "asked for help" and "joined the Soviet Union voluntarily". Whether or not the activities of a puppet governement can be considered legitimate is something everyone can decide for themselves.--Death Bredon 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK I can calling those who edit this article "Estonian nationalistic circles" it is mach better? Such point of vief exists and should be written. Why the Estonian government did not run from the country as Polish or Czechoslovak by okkupation? I moved NPOV back.--Jaro.p 09:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edit this article and I am from Australia, so your claim of "Estonian nationalistic circles" is pure nonsense. The authorative sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica supports the fact of occupation in 1940. You have not supported your claim of POV with cites to reliable sources, but rather resorted to ethnic insults. This is beginning to look like WP:POINT. Martintg 02:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Pre-1991 reliable Western sources sometimes refer to the events of June 1940 as "occupation". They however refer to Estonia as Estonian SSR, accepting the de facto annexation of Estonia. Present-day "occupation theorists" claim that Estonia was occupied territory from 1940 to 1991, and that the Estonian SSR never existed. I consider the use of "occupation" and "okupandid" in this meaning as a form of hate speech. (See also: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Occupation of Baltic states#Comment by Petri Krohn )-- Petri Krohn 12:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Petri Krohn, do you consider the use of "occupation" in this meaning by the European Parliament in this 1983 resolution  on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania hate speech? Note that the EMPs officially went on record condemning "the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and continues." --Klamber 07:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not heard anyone claiming that Estonia was not annexed de facto. Whole point is the fact that annexation was completely illegal, so de jure Estonia was occupied. Czech part of Chechoslovakkia was also de facto annexed by Germany before war, still for some reason you can read a lot about Czech resistance to German occupation.--Staberinde 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Soviet view is, that Estonia was not "annexed", but asked to join the Soviet Union voluntarily. As for the "occupation", de jure is a subjective evaluation, it has no objective meaning. -- Petri Krohn 07:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Objectively speaking, "de jure occupation" only means that someone somewhere has an irredentist or revanchist claim. -- Petri Krohn 08:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The view held by Nazi Germany was that Estonia was not occupied or annexed either, but legally belonged to the Soviet sphere, in accordance with the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Are you telling us now that you sympathise with this Nazi view? Martintg 02:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are those, who sympathize with any view, as long as it is anti-Estonian. DLX 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That was a good point, actually :-D E.J. 16:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I have merged a former article Estonia (1917-1918) into a section of its own, as the Republic's creation history has only been very lightly touched here before.  However, this section should probably be reformed into "Creation of the Republic"; delimiting the period by years is rather arbitrary and hampers the narrative. Digwuren 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1917-1918 

message: Mart Laar has published  about post-Soviet history of Estonia.  It may be of use for sourcing some possibly surprising claims about recent history. Digwuren 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: It seems we don't have an article about deportation of people from Estonia by Soviet Union (Küüditamine). I am not exactly sure what the article could be called - but forced deportation of more then 30,000 is definitely worthy of an article. There are articles Population transfer in the Soviet Union and Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union, but they barely mention it.
Some English sources:
* Red Terror
* Reception of the Topic of Repressions in the Estonian Society
* Project A Joint Register of Estonian Population Losses: sources and methods of research (probably not suitable as a wikisource, but has useful references) 
* PhD dissertation, includes articles in English
* Soviet Genocide? Communist Mass Deportations in the Baltic States and International Law
* Europe: Estonia: Soviet Era Officers Charged
* Deportation from Estonia in 1941 and 1949
* Deportation
*  BALTIC DEPORTATION COMMEMORATION
* Estonia and the Legacy of Soviet "Liberation":
DLX 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is definitely a need for this kind of article, particularly where they were deported to, the conditions they lived in and the aftermath. I was surprised to learn that many who returned were not permitted to work in their original professions. Martintg 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any ideas about the name of the article? DLX 06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Soviet deportations in Estonia?  Digwuren 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet deportations from Estonia, perhaps? DLX 07:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think either of those are okay. --Martintg 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For grammatical reasons, it intuitively feels me that the first one is better.  However, the second one appears to be more precise.  I'll vote for Soviet deportations from Estonia. Digwuren 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deportation of people from Estonia by Soviet Union 

message: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e0571f9570b5cc40a0578d2c0bd6ac5e.png
I think there is no reason to treat the Soviet period of Estonian history as any different from the Danish, Russian or Swedish, ie. "Soviet rule", not "Soviet occupation". I do understand it's symbolism in the sense that the Soviet period separated the "Estonian rule" period in half, and calling it "occupation" sort of makes the Estonian state a  continuous entity (which of course it wasn't politically) - but there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Estonia was incorporated into the Soviet Union on same terms as other republics, and therefore the word "occupation" doesn't seem to be applicable. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dmitriy, this has been previously discussed in Wikipedia quite extensively. While it is true that Estonia was incorporated into the Soviet Union back in 1940, this was not done in a legal way according to the provisions of the 1938 Estonian constitution. This incorporation was never recognised by the majority of other countries. In the west it is widely seen as an occupation, and is reported as such in scholarly journals, books, newspapers as well as in EU and US government declarations. Since you are from Russia, perhaps you may not be so aware of this.  See Occupation of the Baltic states for further details and take particular note of the references. Since the incorporation was illegal to begin with, the pre-war state continued to exist in the legal sense, and thus the year 2008 is the 90th Anniversary of Estonian Republic. Martintg (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But de-facto the Estonian state didn't exist. And Estonia wasn't occupied - because occupation literally means control by a foreign army, and wiki is, after all, an encyclopedia. Of course, the major opponents of the Soviet Union never accepted the annexation of the Baltic states - I am well aware; but those arguments aside, occupation is not a correct word, because there governing wasn't in the hands of the military. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ofcourse all this has been discussed at length in the past, read the talk pages of the various articles. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, supported by reliable sources. Even the esteemed Encyclopedia Britannica speaks of occupation. The Soviet military was certainly based in Estonia for the duration of that period and fought a native insurgency for almost a decade after WW2. However, if you can find an article in a scholarly peer reviewed journal that supports your argument that Estonia was not occupied, or that occupation is the incorrect word, then please by all means post a reference to it here. We have been looking for such an article, but not found anything thus far. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So I have to prove I'm not a camel*, because several reliable sources use, likely for political reasons, an improper term? Does the presense of American forces on Japanese soil constitute occupation? Or, by the virtue of the military not being the governing authority, maybe it's not an occupation after all? Well, thank you for you time, I guess. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the West there is not some single monolithic political view point within all the universities of the world that is centrally controlled by Washington, nor is there some central authority that censors books that does not follow Washington's line. I can walk into any bookshop in Australia and buy a book written by Marx, Lenin or Adolf Hitler. There is no censorship of political opinion here. There are hundreds of books and journal articles that describe the period of Soviet rule as occupation. Academics love to challenge the orthodox view, so why hasn't atleast one single Western academic written in an article or book that states that it was not an occupation and it is an improper term?  Wikipedia relies on published sources, not your personal opinion. Martintg (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I know how it is in the West. There may not be a monolithic political view, but it doesn't mean that persons with opinions rather than acceptable can't get punished. But it's not even the point. As I said, thank you for your time explaining something like this to yet another contender. Basically, as you said, there seems to be academic consensus on using the term occupation non-academically - who am I to contend that? So I retract my statement until I can provide "western" evidence (for all Soviet historians and majority of Russian don't consider the period an "occupation", but of course, unlike their western or estonian counter-parts, they must be biased or pushing political agenda, right?). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are certainly problems with Soviet historiography as it was tightly controlled by the Communist Party and thus pushed its own political agenda. But if you can find something by a reputable modern Russian historian published after 1991, please post it here. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Where does this term come from? In Estonia the period 1941-1944 is usually called "German occupation era" or "WWII era". DJ Sturm (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hitler era"

message: This TIME Magazine article, "RUSSIA: Justice in The Baltic" ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,764407,00.html ) that is being used a source to verify Soviet actions in Estonia in the Summer of 1940 (specifically the claim that people were indiscriminately shot in the back of their heads for not having their passports stamped), contains pretty wild speculation and it's tone is effectively anti-Communist propaganda with a pro-Nazi tilt to it. It is historically too close to the events to even have a possibility for being critical of its sources, and there are claims in the article that don't hold water (especially with respect to the Association-for-Peace-&-Friendship-Between-Finland-and-the-Soviet-Union), so by no means should it be considered a NPOV source for events, even if Time is by today's standards a respectable paper. Claims "verified" by the footnote #38 should thus be resourced or removed, accordingly. 62.78.242.190 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TIME reporters were very highly qualified in 1940 and that's what good primary sources look like. We can't expect both first-hand reporting from the scene, and long-term perspective, in the same story,  The Russians killed and imprisoned many thousands of Estonians, and were known for shooting people.  This is a primary source, and not a secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: TIME Magazine 1940 as a reliable source?

message: Hi, 
I noticed that the sentence " In March 1990 some 18% of Russian speakers supported the idea of a fully independent Estonia, up from 7% the previous autumn, and by early 1990 only a small minority of ethnic Estonians were opposed to full independence." doesn't completely make sense. I think instead of "ethnic Estonians" it should read "ethnic Russians". Thoughts and sources?
Mff2020 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know source of those claims, but they seem logical to me (support for independence was bigger among ethnic Estonians than among ethnic Russians). If you replace "ethnic Estonians" with "ethnic Russians" then final part of sentence (minority of Russians opposed independence) contradicts first part of sentence (minority of Russians supported independence). Minnekon (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of sentence