Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Estonian nationalist bias?

I find it very, very disturbing that Russia still argues that what Stalin did was fine. As if they didn't know that Stalin was one of the worst, if not the worst, dictator ever. It's very, very disturbing that Russians refer to Estonians as Nazis. I mean, it's not ridiculous, as many seem to think, but extremely disturbing. It's like they'd live in a different universe altogether. What's next? Jews trying to poison Putin? Finns eating Russian children? And I just have to admire those Estonians, both ethnic and Russian, who have managed to live in peace all these years despite the injustices the Soviet Union inflicted on them. And even now despite the provocations things are rapidly calming down.Tomppeli 13:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is very biased in favour of the Estonian nationalist view. I recommend someone with a comprehensive, NEUTRAL view to rewrite it entirely. In it's current form, it's more about attacking Russians/Soviets than the actual monument. -Michael, 23/3/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.166.156 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 March 2007

I think we need to remove folklore, we don't need to put these facts here Mkjell 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh... and Estonian communist view is better? OK. I remove "unconfirmed" folklore, but other facts are important to understand the real story.

Is it folklore, that: were was no battles in Tallinn, since city was deserted by german soldiers? I do not think so... Details are sometimes very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.89.80 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 April 2007

I have not removed these facts personally, I think that is OK! I am against the "unconfirmed" folklore. Mkjell 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well. I can dig something up - it will take time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.232.50 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 April 2007

As a first time reader of this article, I also question the pro-nationalist bias. The "Mass Grave" section is reasonable, but lacking in detail/links to articles on Estonian participation on behalf of the USSR during the war. This whole section in general is missing links - for dates, events, people mentioned, institutions, etc. Most monument articles seem to have a general "History" section, that - in this case - would discuss the design process, brief description and links to issues regarding Estonian USSR WW2 events applicable to the monument, issues or events that happened between the Monument's creation to present day (events in the controversy section should remain there). Secondly, this article makes heavy use of the word 'Russian-speaking' to suggest that those people are the only ones that want the monument to remain, while it is later mentioned (though not elaborated on) that the majority of Estonians also want the monument to remain. While reading, I question what it means to be a 'Russian-speaking' Estonian, and why they are being compared to WW2 veterans (ie. "despite protests by World War II veterans, the Russian-speaking Estonian community") or had that been an error? The issues with this wording are also notable in the "Protests" section where it is stated (as fact, not claimed or suggested) that the protesters were all Russian-speaking "Later around 1,000 Russian-speaking protesters," but the source given for this statement included just a bunch of photos? It seems to be a biased generalization, as it's difficult to validate that they were all "russian-speaking". In addition, the "Protests" section is badly written (much like a hastly done news article), sources are either incorrectly placed within sentences (when it would be beneficial to do so at the end of the sentence) or mainly include photos/videos (where arguably descriptive assumptions seem to be made from), and the wording seems ambigious (time-format doesn't match, tenses mismatch, etc.) - Xunny 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"majority of Estonians also want the monument to remain"
Not true. All polls show that most of Estonians support the excavations and relocation of the monument. Poll ("Kas pronkssõdur tuleks Tõnismäelt ära viia?" - http://www.postimees.ee/online/gallup_arhiiv.php) conducted by daily Estonian newspaper Postimees during 25.04.2007 00:00 - 25.04.2007 00:00 showed 85.12% support for relocation. 12.98% voted "no" and the remaining were uncertain.
The protesters were certainly dominated by Russian-speakers, as could be seen on all TV channels - the slogans they shouted were all in Russian and had clear anti-Estonian message. 213.35.186.118 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I live in Estonia, and real nationalists are just russians here. That's Russians who now beat on the streets everyone who does not speak Russian, so please don't speak about Estonian nationalism. I'm neither Estonian, nor Russian, if you wonder, and I'm afraid to go out just because of Russians, not Estonians. That stupid Russian government blame Estonian police, but they (policemen) are the only people who can protect us now, so that's it. I'm very, very frightened.

Battle of Tallinn?

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)

I think, other symbols of so-called "Soviet Occupation" should be immediately removed from Estonian soil. I mean Narva Power Plants. Let Europe supply Estonia by electrical energy! 86.102.223.129 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

It does not matter for current estonian neo-nazis which way German Army left Tallin. They wanna spit upon this. All they wished by removing Bronze Soldier and excavating graves is to insult local Russian population in particular and Russian Federation in general. Plain and simple. Rather suicidal action for such relatively small-sized country...Sea diver 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

What opinion polls

"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)
"Should the Bronze Soldier be removed" (Estonian: "Kas pronkssõdur tuleks Tõnismäelt ära viia?") [1]. 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)


Biased source?

The huliq.com article looks like a load of workspace safe euphemism for bovine faeces. The wording leaves no doubt as to where its origins are. I don't think that should be cited as an unbiased source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freultwah (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 April 2007

Liberation of Tallinn?

This "liberation of Tallinn" must go, this is incorrect and heavily weighted. Technically, it was occupation. The next step is to discuss from whom it was occupied, what were the reasons and the outcome, but at this point it's still incorrect to make this leap of faith and call it liberation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freultwah (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 April 2007

Describing it as "occupation" is at least as biased and non-NPOV as describing it as "liberation".
Military occupation
"Belligerent military occupation occurs when one nation's military occupies all or part of the territory of another nation."
Estonia was formally annexed by USSR in August of 1940 in complete agreement with international law. When Germans took the city on August 28, 1941, it was technically Soviet territory, so we can say that Tallinn was occupied by Germans. When Soviets took the city back on September 22, 1944, they were not taking port of the "territory of another nation" because, at the time, Estonia was not an independent nation, it was part of Soviet Union. You can't occupy your own territory. Whether or not you can call it liberation, that's a different story.
One could talk about e.g. occupation of Königsberg, because it did not belong to Soviet Union pre-war. --Itinerant1 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
See the article Occupation of Baltic States DLX 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It supports my statements. Estonia held parliamentary elections in July 1940, ended up with communist majority, and petitioned the Soviet government to join the Soviet Union. These elections _may_ have been influenced or outright fabricated by Soviets, but, from a technical standpoint, that's not in violation of any international laws. --Itinerant1 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Elections in 1940 were undemocratic and against the constitution. 84.50.11.236 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"When Soviets took the city back on September 22, 1944, they were not taking port of the "territory of another nation" because, at the time, Estonia was not an independent nation, it was part of Soviet Union." - Not true. Remains of pre-war Estonian government came together and declared independence just a few days before Soviets arrived to Tallinn. Even before September iof 1944 Estonia was not de jure a part of Soviet Union since the incorporation was illegal.
"Estonia was formally annexed by USSR in August of 1940 in complete agreement with international law." - Not true. Soviets broke many international laws and treaties, for example The Treaty of Tartu (1920) and Hague Convention IV (1907).

How could the Soviets break a treaty signed prior to their consolidaton as a government? 189.141.54.43 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)ZealotKommunizma

Ever heard of state succession? Are you telling me Bolshevist Russia isn't politically congruent with the Soviet Union? Did I miss another October revolution? Hey, maybe England and the US are still at war, since hey, they signed the Paris Treaty a whopping four years before they ratified their constitution? Unigolyn 04:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, succession, and also there is a reference to the Treaty of Tartu in the mutual aid treaty of 1939. 84.50.11.236 08:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Amateur videos from April 26, 2007 protests

Here are some links to YouTube videos of the protests. Taken from the this Eesti Päevaleht page:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

-- Petri Krohn 01:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What is going on on this page??

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)
In case you did not know: Estonian government wants to relocate the monument. Not to demolish it.Warbola 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Soviets in a pact with Germany

This article has no mention about the fact that the Soviet Union had invaded Estonia while being allied with the nazis, are there really no people bringing this up in Estonia? -Lapinmies 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuck your propaganda! What we need is an unbiased look at this. The soviet soldiers saved the estonians from Nazism, and the estonisans are now bitching about this. This is clearly anti Russian propaganda. We need to edit this crap with the use of unbiased arbitrators, or a comittee with different sides involved. Thank you for being a dick. .--169.232.125.176 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact isn't very well documented?
Trying to move a monument with buried soldiers under it is disgraceful!--169.232.125.176 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ain't it more disgraceful to leave the buried bodies under a bus-stop, across a boozeshop where people are marching over them day in and day out(because that's exactly what's standing on the edges of the park where the statue is situated)? The current article is obviously too short and doesn't carry much information. Both sides should be explained, both the Russian view that they liberated Estonia and the statue honours those who died during this, and the Estonian view that one tyranny replaced another and the statue is nothing more than an insult to those Estonian freedomfighters who died fighting for the country's independence (against both Russians and Germans). There's no info about alternative solutions (like the idea, or was it realized?, that the statue should be declared to honour all soldiers who died, not just Russians). - CyR 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean this one?
You mean this one?
As you may (or may not) know, there is exactly ZERO soldiers or any other persons buried under the monument. The Soviet soldiers that are supposed to be buried there are thought to be buried a little bit towards the church, partially under the adjoining trolley-bus stop.
And again, about that nazism-telltale: Estonia was not attacked by Nazi Germany, but was attacked by the Soviet Union, therefore the first thing that comes to an estonian mind when seeing the soldier is the SU attacking Estonia, occupying it and the deportations and repressions accompanying it. When Nazi Germany invaded Estonian territory, it was because they attacked the Soviet Union. You may argue that had the Soviet Union not occupied Estonia beforehand, the Germans would have but that is irrelevant in this context. Now, when the Nazis retreated from Estonia, estonians tried to establish their own government but after a few days the Soviet Union once more invaded Estonia and this time stayed for 50 years (and again, bear in mind the accompanying deportations and repressions). So, to make myself clear: to the estonians, this statue does not represent the victory over nazism, however it DOES represent the two Soviet occupations, one of which lasted for nearly 50 years.
Now I do understand that the Red Army veterans living in Estonia want to gather once in a while with their comrades and remind the ones that left their lives in that war. But I do not understand the reasoning why it has to occur exactly there, at Tõnismägi. No sensible explanation has been made by either Ночьной дозор, Dmitrii Klenski, Vladimir Lebedev or the Russian Government (which seems a bit too interested in this statue and accompanying issues anyway). Furthermore, the people that have gathered there in May and September the years before, seem not to consist of mostly war veterans but quite about every other member of the russian community here. And the atmosphere during the past gatherings has proven to get quite anti-estonian. Valhalla guardian 08:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Place of worship

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)

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)

(Moved from Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#What shall we call this?)

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)
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)
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)
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).

Clean up requested

It would be great if we could clean this up a little, balance the opposing arguments more carefully, and take down the POV tag so this can go on the 'In the news' section. Thanks.--Pharos 07:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be even greater to start this article from scratch without using any Russian sources. --Tarmo Tanilsoo 13:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The bias of Russian sources can be verified easily enough in this particular incident, as anyone can have a look at any of those youTube links and see that the reports in Russian media of "police brutally attacking peaceful demonstration" just isn't true. ChiLlBeserker 14:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the verb tenses, and English usage in a couple of sections, but not the NPOV. I know *nothing* about this controversy except what I read here.
I removed the word "faction" which appeared after the names of the political parites in the subsection "War Graves Protection Act". In English usage the word "faction" means a part of a political party. A group within a political party with common goals. It is never used to refer to the entire political party. So you might say, "The hard-line faction of the Socialist Party, contiues to resist the decision of the party to compromise with the Centrist Party."
Nwbeeson 14:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Estonian civil rights

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)

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)


Tomb?

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)

Change of 'Fascism' to 'Nazism'

The common view of the statue among many people is that it represents the Red Army's victory against Nazism, not Fascism. Fascism would only apply to Mussolini's Italy. Recent interviews, including international reaction to the statue's removal, have referred to Nazism, not Fascism. Therefore I have changed the word 'Fascism' in the introduction to the more correct reference 'Nazism'. Matt7895 15:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In American English “fascism” is applied equally to Franco's Spain, Hitler's Germany, and Mussolini's Italy. The term originated with Mussolini, but was quickly generalized.
The Google search, “define:fascism,” returns 14 definitions. 9 (64%) say fascism applies to *any* government with certain characteristics and 4 (29%) specifically define the Nazi government as being an example of fascism. That is means 90% of these definitions include more than Mussolini's Italy.
The Encyclopedia Britannica (1970; ISBN 85229-135-3; Volume 9; Page 103), says, "Fascism is the name of a political attitude which puts the nation-state or the race, its power and growth, in the centre of life and history. ...fascism was first used by...Mussolini...it became the general name for similar movements in other countries. ... (p. 106) fascist conquest of Spain. ...by Gen. Francisco Franco...the German form of fascism, known as National Socialism...even Japanese fascism. ...On Sept. 27, 1940, Germany, Italy and Japan concluded, in Berlin, a formal fascist alliance with the intention of imposing 'the new order' of fascist authoritarianism on [the world]...(p. 107) World War II, started by the fascist great powers, ended in complete defeat for them. Fascism survived the defeat of World War II only in Spain and Argentines." Clearly this authority felt that Fascism referred to much *more* than just Mussolini's Italian government. And indeed uses the term extensively to refer to Nazi Germany and these governments which were defeated by Allied powers.
Using the term in the context of this monument is exactly in accordance with the way the Encyclopedia used it 25 years after this statue was installed.
Nwbeeson 17:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Fascism arose in direct response to Marxist-Leninism's success in Russia, so the two always viewed themselves as diametrically opposed to one another. The current context is fine. Scientz 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Fascism is also what the Soviets (as well as the Americans) considered their opponent in World War II. -- Petri Krohn 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That's abject nonsense. The American and British term has always predominantly been Nazi, not Fascist. The misnomer of "fascism" was applied to National Socialism by Soviets wishing to avoid parallels with Marxist-Leninist Socialism and National Socialism. It has since morphed into a general descriptive term for any non-Marxist totalitarian state. At the time, however, National Socialism and Hiberno-Italian Fascism were considered (rightly) to be separate entities. Unigolyn 01:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You're completely wrong. I've got three open textbooks in front of me. Back your claim up with something, and for heaven's sake, learn some wiki civility. "Abject nonsense" indeed. Scientz 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
We should keep the term 'Nazi Germany' then. Maybe now everyone will be happy. Matt7895 02:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"Abject nonsense" referred to the claim of Americans referring to Nazi Germany as "fascists". It's nonsense of the abject kind because English-speaking Allied nations overwhelmingly referred to their enemies as either the Axis or the Nazis and that terminology is still overwhelmingly used (Soup Nazi, not Soup Fascist; Health Nazi, not Health Fascist). A simple Googling of word pairs illustrates it perfectly. Nine million hits for "nazi", one million for "fascist". "Fascist" is a predominantly Russian and left-wing term when applied to Hitler's Germany. As for an article about the historical details of this semantic argument, see here. The more salient point is that in the interests of NPOV, historical references shouldn't use politically charged terminology like "fighting fascism". States don't fight wars against ideologies. A country called the USSR fought, and defeated a country called Nazi Germany. "Fascist" is a blanket term used to tar anyone opposed to the USSR during WW2 regardless of their actual political background and is a loaded term in this context. Where the term is appropriate, use it. I fully agree that "fighting Nazism" is inappropriate language, but "fighting Nazi Germany" isn't - it's NPOV and historically accurate.Unigolyn 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You people have to realize that FASCISM = COMMUNISM. There are slight differences but essentially they are the same principle (totalitarian government, no tolerance for private ownership, loyalty to the party or else, etc.) achieved through a seemingly different but pretty much the same agenda: oppression and terror. -Timberlax 04:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no. Yes, in practice both ideologies led to nearly indistinguishable totalitarianism, but you're seriously playing with fire if you want to equate communism and fascism on Wikipedia. Anyway, it's a red herring. The argument here is about the far-left/Russian connotations of the word "fascism", which opens a giant can of POV. National Socialism is neither fascism nor communism, although it shares traits with both. The proper way to address the issue is to say "fought Nazi Germany" instead of "fought nazism" or "fought fascism". We rhetorically declare war on concepts all the time, but in the current context, we're talking about actual historic armed conflicts, not political sloganeering in the vein of "War on Drugs/Poverty/Terror". Unigolyn 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE ARTICLE

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)

No, irrelevant, unlike this. DLX 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

Modeled after an Estonian wrestler?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Language police?

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)

Russian propaganda. EvilAlex 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)