Talk:Estonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Estonia article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Estonia, or visit the project page for more details.
{{{{{1}}}-Class}} This article has been rated as {{{1}}}-Class on its quality.
WikiProject Estonia Estonia is part of the WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review Estonia has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Liberation from nazi occupation source

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4521663.stm <- how does this source substantiate liberation claims?--Alexia Death 12:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"In Moscow, President Putin stressed Russians had been liberators".--Ilya1166 12:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please add this quote to reference making it clearer?--Alexia Death 12:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but why is Putin's position relevant here? It is clear that marching in of Russians was the end of Nazi occupation and the beginning of Soviet occupation. However, it is not very interesting that Putin calls it a "liberation". You can talk about liberation when someone becomes free ("liber" in Latin means "free", although it also means "child" and "book"), but this was not the case with Soviet occupation. (Even Putin himself knows it -- when he said that Yeltsin brought freedom to Russia.) So I'll delete that sentence if you don't have any arguments of keeping it. (It could be a part of "soviet occupation denial" article, but that one was unfortunately deleted by some biased editors.) Lebatsnok 15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we're hoping to improve that article to a level when it can be reintroduced without fear of deletion. Feel free to contribute at User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes.
As of including that statement, history of this page is essentially that it was introduced as an overblown attempt of WP:NPOV. You see, Russian Federation's official policy regarding the occupation is not much more finegrained that it is to be denied, but in accordance with the doctrine of And you are lynching Negroes, the two main typical reactions -- note that these are not responses -- from Russian officials are "And you are fascists", or "We were victorious over fascists". Thus, an editor who strived hard to maintain neutrality, picked the one of these two he felt more neutral.
This having been said, I agree that neither is really applicable in this article's context. Digwuren 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Rein Lang has put it rather well in [1]:
“ The antifascism of official Russia consists of mere heroisation of a military victory over Hitler-led Germany. Such mob-oriented oversimplification serves a certain purpose — to not think thoroughly about the nature and origins of Nazism. Because this could reveal the sad fact that today's Russia is interchangeably similar to Germany of the 1930s. And we can only hope, and pray to god, that there won't arise a Hitler-like charismatic leader, who would take crazed mob to a fight against Jews, [dark-skinned immigrants], neighbours, and finally, the whole world. ”
Digwuren 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Being not able to think thoroughly about the nature and origins of modern democracy does not let to reveal the sad fact that today's NATO is only the next military "Order of Crusaders", expanding its military presence without any obvious reason. Terrorism? Frauds. If you study the history, and learn something about the Russian-Estonian relations since the very beginning, you'll see that Russia has often protected the Estonian lands from Germans (for example in 1216, when Estonians asked Russian duke Vladimir for help against the German crusaders, and later). And what do you think are the games that Estonians play? Who would think, after the liberation in 1945, that in 2008 Estonians would play Erna Retk? What would the Estonians themselves choose? To stick with Germans honestly and be honestly destroyed by Soviet troops, or to cherish these fascist dreams and suffer Soviet repressions? Were these repressions really unreasonable?Victor V V (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind you one more curiosity? Russian White army general Nikolai Nikolaevich Yudenich, who was fighting against the Red Army and Bolsheviks and wanted to attack Petrograd in 1919, did not receive any help from Finland and Estonia. Moreover, after he has retreated from Petrograd to Estonia in 1919, his troops were disarmed and put to concentration camps. General Yudenich was arrested but then was liberated after negotiating with Antanta, and fled to England, but the most part of his White army, anti-Bolshevik troops was imprisoned in concentration camps and worked in forests, lumbering in Estonia. Some of their communal graves have been revealed recently. Why did it happen so? Did Estonians sympathize to the Bolshevik leaders? Can they not to close eyes on facts? I want this fact to be put into the article. If there is a phrase "Soviet Holocaust" there, then this episode would be called Estonian Holocaust, for proper balancing, although I personally do not support the Jewish-elaborated theory of German Holocaust, I suppose it has been elaborated to provide quasi-historical argument to establishing of Israel, and here I can draw some parallels, as this motive is used my minor nations to accuse the others of all the injustices, thus securing own role in the Europe. Just a theory, offtop. Victor V V (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Victor V V, you are likely well aware that during the Baltics' war for independence, the White Russian, Beromontian, and Bolshevik forces all vied for control of the Baltic territories. I am even more concerned by your statement (I personally do not support the Jewish-elaborated theory of German Holocaust) which appears to be Holocaust denial. Please desist from pushing your POV agendas here. —PētersV (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure, that was just an offtop, because I really do not understand what reason lies behind deleting the neutral material relating to Russia and perverting the reasoning of Russian leaders and Russian politics.Victor V V (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Victor V" has now made clear enough that his reason for being here is not to help making this article better. It seems that he just wants to push his Nazi-Soviet point of view, glorifying the crimes against humanity committed by these two regimes. 193.40.5.245 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ISBNs on references

I see some were entered as "ISBN-10" and then the "-10" taken off. Just for reference, all current titles must now have a 13 digit ISBN (which can be calculated from the 10 digit ISBN). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Estonia's state portal

The portal, [2], is not intended as a press portal to foreigners but as a secure façade for the online services offered by Republic of Estonia. Thus, making sure the clients use SSL is of high priority, and, for example, providing translations in languages other than Estonian and Russian is of low priority.

Given that most of Wikipedia's readership are approaching the site as foreigners, it's probably a good idea, under the principle of reader's primacy, to replace this link with links to more press-oriented [3], [4] and/or [5]. At the very least, this link shouldn't probably be the first among the external links. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 07:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I suggest www.riik.ee be used instead. Reimgild (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

I had to remove following statement from the article: Estonians and Finns as one genetic group by the strand of mtDNA Haplogroup U5 became about around 50,000 years ago, being the first out of Africa in to Europe. This is very similar to Finns origin.

The facts are, the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens genes in Europe, the foremother Ursula mtDNA U5 spreads across Europe in following percentage according to the year 2000 data:[6]

etc. so if these facts are about to be added to the article, it should be done so that it makes sense. Also much more significant regarding Estonians is the Haplogroup N (Y-DNA), the "finnic gene". --Termer 06:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The map

Please change the map, it's low resolution and shows some rather not necessary places. Use this instead: http://www.chicagopianos.com/images/estoniamap.jpg . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.76.81 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The map you're linking to is both all-rights-reserved copyrighted (only maps licensed under a free license can be used on Wikipedia) and inexact. However, I do agree that a higher-resolution map is needed. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The map is not good because it shows the borders of Estonia prior 1940, including some areas that are part of Russia nowadays.--Termer (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For Estonians this map is very good, as they have territorial claims.--Victor V V (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights section

My contribution has been reverted on the grounds that 'the section title is misleading' and that the topics are covered elsewhere. Please tell we where this is covered - I looked at the Estonian Politics page and it is not there; and also what you consider is misleading about the term Human Rights abuse - I will remove the 'abuse' word if you find it offensive but otherwise the issues are facts and should not be censored; I will revert if there is no other problem. I have visited Estonia many times and have long-term resident(30 years) friends there who lost their jobs due to the language rules - previously they worked in government departments where Russian was the requirement - but they were not born Russian and had to learn the language. Ray3055 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See e.g. History of Russians in Estonia, LGBT rights in Estonia. Virtually all European countries (not to mention rest of the world) have issues with immigrants, are you willing to create similar paragraphs to every one of them? I am not going to discuss cases of specific persons, Soviet Union is no more, the country is Estonia and therefore it cannot be that officials are not able to speak Estonian (how could they not learn it in 30(17) years anyway?). What has it to do with human rights, can you drive a bus without a license? Oth (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. Yes, believe it or not my friend agrees that Estonia has a right to require a knowledge of Estonian; but to take away a persons citizenship after they have lived and worked legally for many years (and born in a country that like Estonia was occupied by the Russians and forced to move to Estonia for work) and then deny them work unless they are fluent in Estonian is a clear abuse of Human Rights - this is the opinion of the United Nations, The European Parliament and others, and not just a personal opinion. As you may know to hold certain offices the language test is not just 'basic' speech but requires an in-depth grammar knowledge, and Estonian is a very complex language - for a person in their 50s having to learn this as their third language is not easy, and without a proper job paying for lessons is difficult. There are as you may know many people who had to take the test many times before passing - and the cost is quite significant. Like many others over 40 in the capital Russian is the everyday language with their friends even though they would not in a million years consider themselves 'Russian'; their parents were not from the SSR and they were not born in the SSR, just another European country like Estonia. There was no need to learn Estonian before independance, everyone was required to learn Russian to hold down a government job; because they did not think the loss of citizenship and jobs was going to be long term there was no urgency to learn Estonian and with no Estonian speaking freinds it was not feasable anyway, it was only the recent intervention of the EU that has made suitable lessons available Ray3055 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Many of your assertions are simply incorrect. Nobody has had their citizenship "taken away". During the Soviet period everyone was a Soviet citizen. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was ambiguity in status of post war immigrants, were they Russian citizens or Estonian citizens? Rather than imposing blanket Estonian citizenship upon people who may not necessarily want it, Estonia gave these people a free choice, either become a Russian citizen or an Estonian citizen. The fact that half of these so-called non-citizens opted for Russian citizenship fully vindicates Estonia's position. I fully support Oth's action in reverting your edits, Wikipedia is not a soap box. Martintg (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Who exactly "denies the work" if you are not fluent in Estonian? This nothing to do with human rights. If you work in client service in Estonia, you have to be fluent in A) Estonian, B) Russian, C) English. Some shops and small places accept also people who are not that fluent in Russian or Estonian. Because most of the residents are able to speak atleast so much estonian or russian that they can point out which product they want from the shelf. Larger companies with large customer base can't really allow this, so the client service is always capable of speaking Estonian, Russian, English and sometimes Finnish. So for example I can't get job there because I am not fluent in Russian. So who is being abused here? The job just requires you to speak a variety of language skills and ofcouse the job is closed to those who don't have those skills. Like any other job that requires some skills that the person applying doesn't have.
Now, there is also a situation where you have to do teamwork, but most of the team is not able to speak Russian. Employer avoids hiring people who can only speak Russian because it would be hard for him to work in the team. This also applies to companies which have mostly russian based teams who avoid hiring people who are not that good in russian. Many companies in the other hand have chosen the English language as official language in company.
Would you hire a client service person who is able to communicate with only 20% of your clients, potentially losing 80% of your clients? Would you hire one who is NOT able to communicate with 20% of your clients? I think you would say no to both of those questions. It's nothing on gov level, it's just a business decision of companies. Suva Чего? 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
what is this is the opinion of the United Nations, The European Parliament and others? Please Ray3055 refer to the source thats says so. but I can save you the time since the claim is simply a made up thing. Not the United Nations or The European Parliament have never suggested there is something wrong with the human rights in Estonia. there are politically motivated claims around but all of these are based on factual inaccuracies and are part of a certain smearing campaign everybody who is familiar with the subject are aware of. I regret that you have chosen to participate in this smearing campaign and have brought it to WP Ray3055. WP shouldn't be a place to advance such political agendas. thanks!--Termer (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses. I agree with Oth, other countries have similar problems and it would be unfair to have a section on this for Estonia and not others, and since no other country articles seem to have such sections I will not add one here. I agree also this is not the place for a 'soapbox' and I can assure you all that I am not a political activist of any kind and my responses here are only in reply to your questions and not meant to 'smear' Estonians; In answer to Suva, yes your comments are valid but I am refering to work by 'stateless' persons in certain government departments, not work in shops etc. In answer to Termer here is just one source of many - [7] that refers to the UN reports. And finally to marting, yes people were offered (for a limited number of years) the choice of Russian or Estonian citizenship (but not the persons original citizenship, which had to be denounced to become an Estonian SSR citizen), but without having Estonian language proficiency it was not possible to obtain Estonian citizenship and therefor the Estonian government issued documents which made the persons 'stateless' - which is what I meant when I said having their citizenship "taken away" - which in turn makes it practically impossible to work elsewhere. Unfortunately, the issues are complex and I do not wish to discuss the circumstances of individuals here, also please remember this page is for discussing the Estonia article and not for attacking well meaning contributors. Ray3055 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In regard to employment in certain government departments, note that in the UK it would be impossible for a non-english speaking British citizen to gain employment in, say, the London Metropolitan Police. The pass threshold for the language test for Estonian citizenship is set fairly low, so if a non-citizen doesn't have sufficient skills to pass the test to gain citizenship, then I hardly think that this person would have sufficient language skills to join the Police force in any case. Also note that if a Russian-speaker took the time to become fluent in Estonian, then this would be an advantage in seeking employment compared to a monolingual Estonian speaker. The point is that there is no structural or policy driven discrimination here, it basically market driven by the needs of the particular situation, i.e. monolingual russian-speaker -> lowest employability, monolingual estonian-speaker -> better employment prospects due to larger job market, bilingual -> best employment prospects.
In regard to having one's citizenship taken away, we can discuss this on your talk page if it is in regard to some individual case. Generally, Estonian citizenship is not ethnic based. Note that ethnic Estonians who emigrated away from Estonia before 1918 (when Estonia proclaimed indepenance), also have to apply for citizenship including the language test. Martintg (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not often mentioned, but it has been noted in reputable sources that Russia, as the legal successor to the Soviet Union, also chose not to automatically grant citizenship, or the option of citizenship, to all the citizens of the former state to which it was legal successor. That those individuals resided in territory no longer part of Russia was not an impediment preventing Russia from granting citizenship (or the option thereof). Thinking more Latvia here, but true regardless of anyone currently "stateless" in either Estonia or Latvia. —PētersV (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

On something less controversial, I did write the Estonian president's office and inquired about a state motto and did confirm there is none. —PētersV (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you – good to have this direct verification. Reimgild (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The inclusion of Kosovo

I'm resuming with the inclusion of an independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that recognise it. Bardhylius (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 internet attack

wired.com - Hackers Take Down the Most Wired Country in Europe (2007-08-21)

I was expecting at least mention of this story, which I reckon will have historical significance (being a possible precursor of things to come), but apparently it's missing. What I'm not sure of is which section this best fits under. -- MiG (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007 and mentioned in History of Estonia, we don't need to add it here. Martintg (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Country box - Independence

What is this about adding the Danish, Swedish and Russian occupations here, they have no purpose here. This isn't a place to describe the history in a very short way. I am deleting everything up to autonomy declared (autonomousy?).H2ppyme (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, this article is just full of smaller mistakes. on that picture, the last troops didn't leave on the same day when independence was redeclared ; I believe they are called Baltic Germans even when they lived in Estonia ; And I believe most Estonians would say, that this is not a typical Estonian highway :). so these are just some of them that i spotted. It's nice that someone has done some work with this article, but now it's time for corrections. Also, you don't have to mention the annexed territories in every other sentence. H2ppyme (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree, great work so far, now it's time for a clean up. Martintg (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

20 August 1994 - were they day when the last Soviet troops left Estonia - this is officially recognized fact everywhere - you´ve probably misunderstood something somewhere. There is even a postal stamp printed in the honor of this day. I can add a link for it if it interests... Estonian highways looks pretty much like this manily 1+1 and some sections 2+2. Highway in the terms of Estonia is not similar as it is in US or Germany. Karabinier (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

well, that really is a typical estonian highway, but do we have to mention that we have highways like that only on two roads leaving out from tallinn and both only for some 20-50km :) rest of the roads are well, really more like roads than highways :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.178.126 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Tourism" section.

I removed the "tourism" section of the article as it was plagiarized verbatim from Estlandia.de. Wikipedians can not plagiarize texts from copywritten sources or other sites. Hopefully, someone can do a better write up. I am busy at this point, or would give it a go. ExRat (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using Offensive redirects as main articles

Usually it is a good idea to use the main title of an article then using {{main}}. The main title is a result of discussions and is the best summary for its content. If you think that the title of an article is wrong please start WP:RM process. In particular Soviet Holocaust seems to be a very poor form of redirect to the article that does not mention the word Holocaust at all. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I find the current title of the Spassk Gulag labour camp picture incorrect, because it goes a bit too far beyond what can be seen on the picture and may be regarded as provocative (i.e. not neutral). Apart from the poor redirect, the current title might suggest that there were only Estonians in this labour camp. The Gulag article says that the Spassk camp was a special camp for disabled people, but doesn't give any further details about it. In Gulag in general, "for years after World War II, a significant minority of the inmates were Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians". But this would be too long a tilte, I think. So my suggestion for a new title is simply "Gulags Spassk labour camp" N-lane (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So, why is it still "Soviet Holocaust"? Who will rename it? Victor V V (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The title of that picture I also deem to be incorrect and not neutral.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Viktor canvassing in Russian Wikipedia http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Обсуждение:История_Эстонии&diff=prev&oldid=8574541 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.26.47 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Annexed in accordance with..."

Well that made it sound like there was some gentlemen's agreement. Please do not delete the statement that the USSR occupied Estonia. Please do not reinsert Molotov-Ribbentrop in a way that makes it sound like a legal agreement. We can leave discussions of illegality for the body for those who are squeamish about disputing Soviet propaganda. "Occupation" by the USSR the first time is neither "negotiable" nor a "viewpoint." We've been through this enough times already. —PētersV (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with this version of Vecrumba while I would prefer a less confrontational talk page message style. --Irpen 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't use bolding, italics, or underlines. And what have you done with Irpen? :-) Editorial congeniality is always welcome. —PētersV (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This was just an agreement, following the Munich agreement, and I think I clarified that. So, there is no need do use such pathetic words as illegal, as if any other secret pact can be called "legal". If legally, then the Treaty of Nystad is still in force as it acts without limitation of time, and has not been terminated, so any following "annexation" and "occupation" is purely "legal", if you wish to use these terms.Victor V V (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Bolshevik Russia renounced all claims to sovereignty over the Baltics for all time. Of course the pact was completely illegal, even the Soviet Union got around to saying so (and the USSR never confessed to anything) once it was admitted the pact even exists. You might consider more appropriate venues for your fanciful POVs of history. A blog, perhaps. —PētersV (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the infamous neo-fascist POV pusher User:Roobit does have a blog, then: why not :P 80.235.111.150 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, modern Russia does not recognize the Tartu Treaty, and this article should reflect not your vain hopes, but real facts:

1. there has been a Treaty of Nystad (fact)

2. there has been a Tartu Treaty (fact)

3. one of them is not recognized by modern Russia, namely the second (fact).

4. any conclusions based on supposition that modern Russia recognizes the second Treaty, are false.

5. the legal nature of the first Treaty is disputable.--Victor V V (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "recognizing" or "not recognizing" an agreement you've signed. If you think, for example you've been tricked into signing it, you can go to court and let them decide. But just saying "I don't recognize it" is not a valid reason. Besides, Russia has made no official statements about cancelling the Tartu peace treaty. This would mean, among other things, that Estonia and Russia would still be in war (see Article I of that treaty:). So Russia "recognizes" at least the Article I :P. Now but why is "modern Russian" POV important here? They do not "recognize" the Tartu Peace Treaty because that would mean a lot of legal obligations for them, - that's obvious. But they have no legal reasons whatsoever for doing so. On the other hand, nobody can force them to fulfill their legal obligations -- that's also obvious. 193.40.5.245 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
modern Russia does not recognize the Tartu Treaty -- Doesn't matter even if it doesn't. Its predecessor's predecessor signed it, and its predecessor (for which it has taken on the role of successor and confirmed by CIS states treat) confirmed it. Your position is, I'm sorry, all pro-Stalinst revisionist WP:OR. —PētersV (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say "Doesn't matter" - you should add "to whom it doesn't". This would be neutral, otherwise you use prejudiced notion. Revisionist, yes, to revision all that pro-NATO and pro-Estonian vision. Don't I have the right to do it? --Victor V V (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not when it is your personal POV not reputably sourced in Western scholarship. Soviet scholarship and what has been carried from it forward into current Russian policy is not a neutral balancing factor to Western scholarship. "Anti-Soviet" merely means anti-what-is-untrue in Soviet historiography. It does not mean Estonia lies equally in some sort of POV tug of war. What is wrong in Soviet historiography is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of facts. It's not, as you postulate, that "Soviet opinion" is equally factually valid to "Estonian opinion." —PētersV (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As for my "doesn't matter", I have not seen where Russia has explicitly stated it reneges on prior treaty agreements. And even if someone states that Russia does not recognize the original treaties of peace with each of the Baltic states as today's Russia somehow not being a successor of Bolshevist Russia, the USSR signed treaties to the same effect. And you keep forgetting that today's Russia (just prior to the collapse of the USSR) did in fact sign a treaty that confirmed in writing that the USSR violated Lithuania's sovereignty. (Same situation as Estonia and Latvia.) —PētersV (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Middle ages and relations with Russia

I think my additions about Estonian relations with Russia in Middle Ages have been unjustly removed (it's like someone wants to delete this page of our common Russian-Estonian history).

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In the 1216 Estonians asked Russian duke Vladimir for help against the German knights, the Russian troops set off for the campaign, they were also joined by the Novgorod-Pskov troops [1]. As it was requested by Estonians, Russian troops were dislocated in garrisons in the fortress of Yuriev (later known as town Tarbatu, now Tartu), and the other towns [2]. In 1219, Danish troops who came to help the German knights, established the fortress Revel (now the Estonian capital Tallinn, which means "Danish city"). In 1224, the fortress of Yuriev (later known as town Tarbatu, now Tartu), had been besieged by the German troops and fell. During the assault, the Russian duke Vyachko has been killed [3], defending the city and refusing to leave it (in fear that the resting Estonians would be severely killed by the barbarian German Crusaders). The city has been renamed into Derpt dy the Germans [4] [5] From 1228 to the 1560s, Estonia was a part of the Livonian Confederation, as a part of the territory captured by the German knights. It has been formed as a confederation of the 5 states: the Livonian Order, the Rigan Archbishopric (as the Episcopacy since the end of the XII century, and as the Archbishopric since 1251), the Kurliandian Episcopacy (since 1234), the Derpt Episcopacy (since 1224) and the Ezel Episcopacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of your claims are factually incorrect, for example Tarbatu was the name of the town before the fort of Yuriev was constructed. We will have to verify the remaining material you have added. Martintg (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you can share the historical reference to prove your point? Russian written sources of that period give the name "Yuriev", besides, Russian language had been spoken by Estonians as well in that period, due to close contacts between the cultures. The current variant of the article presents Russia as an absolute aggressor at any time of the history, without references or arguments, and not allowing to put any neutral information, which is simply incorrect and seems like prejudiced censorship. I hope you'll verify my material before I put it on the Dispute resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Victor V V (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for the verdict: Isn't it funny that the only remark about Russia in the Middle Ages section says that "Russia attempted unsuccessful invasions in 1481 and 1558"? How short is the poisoned memory, which refuses even to mention the country in more or less neutral way... Victor V V (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is typical Soviet historiography: that friendly relations and close contacts had always existed throughout the ages between the Baltic peoples and Russians, who were always presented as superior to the Balts and as their saviours against feudal German aggression. It emphases the temporary alliances while ignoring the wars fought by Balts against them. It is also claims that commerce flourished whenever an area was taken over by Russian rulers and wilted when they left, for example your comment that Estonians have never founded any town in Estonia before the arrival of the Germans or Russians is absurd. Martintg (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Well, your point is pure "Estonian historiography", isn't it? That friendly relations and close contacts had never existed, and Russians are always portrayed as aggressors. Bring then the historical references pointing at that wars, that's all I ask, because otherwise the section is disputable. The article on "Soviet historiography" is not edited yet by trustful editors, so any statement regarding the Baltic region history should be supported by references. As a matter of fact, I do not see any reference in the Middle Age section, and all the facts from Russian chronicles (which are available) are omitted, accept for unsuccessful invasions in 1481 and 1558", also without any comments or references. This makes me think that I should request the references from those who wrote this section, and add all available information about relations with Russia. You might also know that Russian historian Karamsin, whose reference I bring as an argument, could not be Soviet or a part of Soviet historiography simply because he lived in 1766 – 1826 (You might also know that Russia had not been Soviet during that period).

And bring me the example of the Estonians town founded by Estonians, with all the arguments.

Are there any other arguments, or you just delete the complete block about Russia because of the statement on Yuriev - Tartu and attributing Karamsin to "Soviet historiography"?

As for the absurd, the absurd is when "occupated Estonia" redirects to "Estonian SSR", but not to Estonia occupated by Swedish or Danish. Estonians may seem it as not an absurd, but objectively, the "occupation" should not directly mean "Soviet", as this point pertains to a disputable stage in the bilateral relations of two countries. Victor V V (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see...

  • Russians are always portrayed as aggressors. Scholars estimate 17,000 Latvians were left alive after Peter the Great conquered Livonia. One could travel for miles and not even hear a crow. I have to believe the toll on the Estonians was equally horrific.
  • '"occupated Estonia" redirects to "Estonian SSR", but not to Estonia occupated by Swedish or Danish. Perhaps you are unaware that war was a legal means for settling disputes prior to the 20th century. Your parallel to the Soviet Union, in the 20th century, breaking multiple oaths pledging to observe the soveregnty of the Baltics for all time is an ill-informed synthesis at best. —PētersV (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


"war was a legal means for settling disputes prior to the 20th century" - that's funny, who decided that? Britain was occupying India until 1947, and after that the US and NATO constantly uses the war as a regular measure. Do you need examples? Do you ever look around? --Victor V V (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We were talking about Middle Age, not about Peter I. I don't care what do you believe in, I ask for sustainable references. I myself bring such. As for the oaths and breaches, again, it lacks arguments and references that would be clear to not-biased reader. --Victor V V (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I really want to know where to Estonians get references for Middle Age period, because as far as I know, most of the sources of that period are in Old Russian (Old Slavic), which makes your silence and negation even more intriguing. Still, I am not a professional, I want to compare sources. Is it possible? Or may I please, please insert the paragraph from Karamsin about the beginning of the XIII century? --Victor V V (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Livonian Rhymed Chronicle and the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia are the main sources, Novgorod First Chronicle is the only slavic source. It is fact that systematic pillaging by Russian forces during the Great Northern War and destruction of Tartu killed most of the local civilian population of Estonia and Livonia. Seems fairly aggressive behaviour to me, Martintg (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, true, Russia won that war, but this argument does not fit here, as not related to the Middle Ages (You can start a separate section on Great Northern War, I hope you know how to do that). So, are there any reasons not to put the abstract from Karamsin as a reference? And can you mark to which statements do the given sources refer? Livonian Rhymed Chronicle , Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, Novgorod First Chronicle? I hope you know how the references should be formatted.

http://litopys.org.ua/novglet/ - this is the text of Novgorod First Chronicle, upon which Karamsin based his study. --Victor V V (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Estonia in the Russian Empire - why my information is deleted again?

Why my information about Estonia in the Russian Empire is deleted again? In the previous section you allow such statements as "This period is known in Estonian history as "the Good Old Swedish Time."" And the following period of 200 years within the Russian Empire is described in only 3 short sentences. I put the propositions from the Treaty of Nystad, and specifically the article about the financial agreement with Sweden, proving that the territory has been bought from Sweden for certain amount of money (2 mln silver talers or efimok), and bring the exact reference to the original handwritten text and a link to the web page with Russian text of the Treaty. What is wrong? This is a historical fact disavowing some arising historical questions and territorial claims, and therefore it should be mentioned. Victor V V (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that payment of reparations was a transaction for the purchase of Baltic land is synthesis. Martintg (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that payment of money was reparations for the Baltic land is synthesis. Did you read the Treaty of Nystad at all? There is no such a word as reparations in the whole text, it is said that the land is "ceded to eternal and uncompromising possession of Russian Empire and its successors (sic)", and so on. So, the first reason is that the word "reparations" is not mentioned in the text. And the second reason is even more simple: Russia has WON that war (which is clearly stated in the text if you doubt), and the winner does not pay reparations by definition (this is the defeated side that pays reparations). Therefore, this transaction is the purchase of Baltic land. Or let's just place the text here, as it is: Here is the Article 4 (http://law.edu.ru/norm/norm.asp?normID=1119383): 4. Е.к.в. свейское уступает сим за себя и своих потомков и наследников свейского престола и королевства Свейского е.ц.в. и его потомкам и наследникам Российского государства в совершенное непрекословное вечное владение и собственность в сей войне, чрез е.ц.в. оружия от короны свейской завоеванные провинции: Лифляндию, Эстляндию, Ингерманландию и часть Карелии с дистриктом Выборгского лена, который ниже сего в артикуле разграничения означен и описан, с городами и крепостями: Ригой, Дюнаминдом, Пернавой, Ревелем, Дерптом, Нарвой, Выборгом, Кексгольмом и всеми прочими к помянутым провинциям надлежащими городами, крепостями, гавенами, местами, дистриктами, берегами, с островами Эзель, Даго и Меном и всеми другими от курляндской границы по лифляндским, эстляндским и ингерманландским берегам и на стороне Оста от Ревеля в фарватере к Выборгу на стороне Зюйда и Оста лежащими островами, со всеми так на сих островах, как в вышепомянутых провинциях, городах и местах обретающимися жителями и поселениями и генерально со всеми принадлежностями, и что ко оным зависит высочествами, правами и прибытками во всем ничего в том не исключая, и как оными корона свейская владела, пользовалась и употребляла И е.к.в. отступает и отрицается сим наиобязательнейшим образом, как то учиниться может, вечно за себя, своих наследников и потомков и все королевство Свейское от всяких прав, запросов и притязаний, которые е.к.в. и государство Свейское на все вышепомянутые провинции, острова, земли и места до сего времени имели и иметь могли, яко же все жители оных от присяги и должности их, которыми они государству Свейскому обязаны были, по силе сего весьма уволены и разрешены быть имеют, так и таковым образом, что от сего числа в вечные времена е.к.в. и государство Свейское, под каким предлогом то б ни было, в них вступаться, ниже оных назад требовать не могут и не имеют; но оные имеют вечно Российскому государству присоединены быть и пребывать. И обязуется е.к.в. и государство Свейское сим и обещают его царское величество и его наследников Российского государства при спокойном владении всех оных во всякие времена сильнейше содержать и оставить имеют, такожде все архивы, документы всякие и письма, которые до сих земель особливо касаются и из оных во время сей войны в Швецию отвезены, приисканы и е.ц.в. к тому уполномоченным верно отданы быть. The sum of money is given in the last Article. I can render it in English or perhaps someone has the trustful English version. These provisions are very important as showing the legal nature of Russian politics, otherwise the whole article seems biased and prejudiced, as Russia is represented as an agressor, while Sweden reminds of "good old times".Victor V V (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Comment: the reason for deletion is obvious. You had added some outdated and most likely personal interpretations and commentary to the facts, such as: which in fact means that the territories have been bought by Russia and belong to it according to the traditional norms of international law. The fact is , with the Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian) in 1920 Russia renounced in perpetuity all rights to the territory of Estonia.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer Ok, can I delete the personal statements and leave the provisions of the Treaty about the transaction? Otherwise it seems as an occupation. As for the Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian), it has not been recognized by some members of Entente, just like the Soviet Russia has not been recognized as the successor of Russian Empire, which makes this Treaty disputable, especially if in the other cases (the activity of anti-Soviet Estonian diplomats in the US, recognition of "occupation"), the position of western countries can be mentioned. What is more important, is that many researchers suppose that the term of Treaty has ended after Estonia has joined the Soviet Union (http://www.regnum.ru/news/583456.html, http://www.rg.ru/2005/05/19/rossia-estonia.html). And therefore, the proposition that Russia does not recognize the Treaty of Tartu, has been Russian condition of signing the new Russian–Estonian treaty in 1995, and it has been signed. After that, during ratification, Estonian side has added the preamble and propositions referring to the Treaty of Tartu and "occupation"-related acts. Considering this breach of the Treaty, Russia refused to ratify the new Treaty. But nothing has been said about the Treaty of Nystad, which makes the situation more complicated. And I think at least the history of the disputes should be reflected in the article.Victor V V (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Treaty of Nystad should be mentioned of course. Just that 2 mln silver talers for Estonia would be factually incorrect because the sum involved larger territories acquired from Sweden in the aftermath of the Great Northern war. Regarding the Treaty of Tartu, the facts are, that Russia does not recognize it since 1940 and Estonia sill considers it it's "birth certificate".--98.212.196.116 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless, the SOVIET UNION also signed treaties to the same effect, so it violated its own word. The contention that not everyone recognized Bolshevik Russia as successor to the Russian empire meant that it was under no obligation to conform to the covenants and obligations it made itself party to (and by extension the USSR after its organization was under no obligation regarding Bolshevist Russia even though it was the same regime) is, I'm sorry, a pitiful excuse for the USSR stomping its own promises into dust. Your contention that a regime doesn't recognize what it itself signed is beyond any reason.
  • And individual rights and education of the local populace was much better under the Swedes than the Russians. Not to mention there wasn't much left of the local populate once Peter the Great got through conquering Livonia. —PētersV (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as we agree not to use the personal and biased language, then it is not important how Estonians treat the agreement of Tartu, "birth certificate" or not, but if the other Party does not recognize it, it should be mentioned, because as Estonians do not care about Russian Victory Day, then we also do not pay pathetic attention to "birth certificates". Not recognized, and that's all. It should be in the article.

And therefore, the statement that - [u]The fact is , with the Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian) in 1920 Russia renounced in perpetuity all rights to the territory of Estonia[/u] - is false because it only reflects the position of 1 (one) side of the dispute. This is not the fact but the argument, which should be balanced by the Russian argument of the Treaty of Nystad.

The treaty clearly states: "Russia unreservedly recognizes the independence and sovereignty of the State of Estonia, and renounces voluntarily and forever all sovereign rights possessed by Russia over the Estonian people and territory whether these rights be based on the judicial position that formerly existed in public law, or in the international treaties which, in the sense here indicated, lose their validity in the future". At that point the Treaty of Nystad was extinguished, this is clearly a fact. Martintg (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A "fact" is not a proper term here, it needs a special commission to provide the study on this issue, as the dispute over the Tartu agreement is not resolved yet. My point now is just reflecting a controversy, that may possibly arise, as it is already a point of many discussions in Russia.--Victor V V (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "discussion" is not a proper term here. The facts are that Russia signed the treaty which contains the cited words, that the treaty reflected a mutual agreement, that Russia eventually broke it, and that the treaty has never been canceled by mutual agreement. You can discuss historical meaning of these facts, or their legal significance, but denial of facts is not a discussion. Lebatsnok (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no dispute over Soviet Russia having signed treaties recognizing the sovereignty of the Baltic states for all time. "Discussions" (according to you) in Russia don't mean there's any basis in fact for those discussions. The Duma has also proclaimed Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law--but has not a shred of evidence for that. —PētersV (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like the arrest of general Yudenich in 1919. Victor V V (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet annexation - "Time" and newspapers as a reliable source, or just proofless anti-Russian speculations?

Here I continue to investigate the presentation of the Russian image. I wonder if the numerous citations from the "Time" can be considered as the reliable source for the very provocative statements? The articles, written in publicist style, without any references, full of biased language can not be considered as a source for such serious accusations, and therefore either the statements should be withdrawn, or the reliable references should be put instead. The examples:

Soviet bombers began a patrol over Tallinn and the nearby countryside. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,762664,00.html (Moscow's Week)

On June 12, 1940, the order for a total military blockade on Estonia was given to the Soviet Baltic Fleet. http://www.mil.fi/laitokset/tiedotteet/1282.dsp (this source also does not lead to any reliable source, just a short newspaper article)

In August 1940, Estonia was illegally annexed by the Soviet Union as the Estonian SSR. This statement is purely speculative and provocative, as it uses biased language (not neutral) without sufficient proofs.

those who had failed to have their passports stamped for voting, were condemned to death by Soviet tribunals. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,764407,00.html (Justice in The Baltic)

Contemporary Russian politicians deny that the Republic of Estonia was illegally annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940. This statement is purely speculative and provocative, as it uses biased language (not neutral) without sufficient proofs.

The Russian position is not recognized internationally. This statement is purely speculative and provocative, why should be internationally recognized the position on such a minor issue? Have there been any statements or arguments that it should be recognized or have there been any statements refusing to recognize this Russian position? Otherwise the sentence is senseless. Victor V V (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry Victor V V but the only one who has added speculative and provocative statements here is you. In case you're not familiar with the history, like it's clear you're not, it can't get simpler than that. The Baltic states, European Union and the US etc. say Estonia was illegally annexed by USSR in 1940 and Russia says it wasn't. These are the facts, please read the news and history books from both sides. In case you'd like to balance the article and cite what Russian side has to say about the issues, feel fee to do so by adding: "according to...". Just that you can't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT as an argument for deleting or manipulating the viewpoints in the article that don't match with your bias.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to prove your point and to prove that my words are biased, you need to use some reliable sources. That is what I was asked to do. Or am I the only exception? Even if the European Union and the US etc. say so, it doesn't prove that it is true simply because they are not interested in such truth, just read what Stalin said. I do not take any statements for granted, I need historical proofs, fundamental researches or documents. "Times" is a biased media, therefore I doubt its objectiveness and ask for more reliable and sustainable arguments in such disputable questions concerning the reputation of my country. We should remember that the aim of Wikipedia is bringing the facts more or less objectively (as far as I understand). And objectively, not only Russian side has to prove each word, but all the other sides as well. And I will make sure that it would be done. Victor V V (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no truthiness on WP. There are only facts and "he says and she says". And there is European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States, there is | a resolution of the European parliament, Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union in 1990 condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and itself that led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic etc. from one side and modern Russian sources that say another thing [8].--98.212.196.116 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Each "fact" must be provided with sufficient proofs, because | a resolution of the European parliament again refers to the Dorpat - Tartu Treaty, which is not recognized by Russia. And if the bilateral treaty is not recognized by one of the parties - it should be stated in the article, because it is an important fact, and any accusations basing on presupposition that the other party recognizes the treaty, are false, because the legal nature of the Treaty should be proved first. All these disputable issues should be reflected as they are, according to current situation and considering not only the Estonian viewpoint and desires. Victor V V (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


You see guys, let me explain. Russia is in subtle confrontation with NATO, with the US and some European countries. Therefore, any references on Russian history coming from that countries should be double checked, just as Russian sources. The other point is that Estonia wants to gain extra points before the West and NATO, including all the ways to show own history in the most pitiful way, as the history of a little country bordering the all-time absolute aggressor - Russia. But again, this source - Wikipedia - should not reflect only the Estonian vision, as it concerns Russian history as well. Therefore the article will be balanced and all the prejudiced statements will be removed.Victor V V (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not insert your POV under the guise of "balance" and removing "prejudice." What you denigrate as the "Estonian" viewpoint is the viewpoint of everyone except yourself and Russian pronouncements, and even Russian pronouncements don't go as far as your creations of complete fiction (Nystad means Estonia still actually legally belonged to the Soviet Union). —PētersV (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the arguments above, marked by numbers 1,2,3,4,5 - about the Nystad. Yes, the supposition that it is an acting Treaty is disputable. Not less disputable then the Treaty of Tartu.--Victor V V (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just your personal synthesis, please provide a reference from a reliable scholarly source that states Estonia still belongs to Russia because of the Treaty of Nystad. Note that Russia has declared itself the legal successor to the Soviet Union, upholding all obligations from treaties signed by the Soviet Union. Martintg (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of Treaty of Nystad by Victor V V is an interesting one. However, if there is any notable politicians or historians or anybody other than Victor V V who shares this kind of theories about Treaty of Nystad, it would be interesting to know. So far even the hard core Russian nationalists haven't suggested anywhere that Treaty of Nystad could be considered in effect, that's just not serious talk here.
regarding Treaty of Tartu, it should be common knowledge that since 1940 USSR didn't and Russia doesn't recognize it any more, at the same time Estonia has it written into its Constitution: § 122..These are the facts, there is nothing more to it or dispute about it on WP.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just reflect the controversy that appears sometimes in Russian media.

So, I hope the fact that "since 1940 USSR didn't and Russia doesn't recognize" the Treaty of Tartu would be placed into the article, as neutral and clarifying the issue of Estonian-Russian mutual relations and all the controversies resulting from this fact. This means that the non-neutral term "illegal" would be omitted as regarding the events after 1940, because such interpretation does not reflect the position of the Party that does not recognize the Treaty. --Victor V V (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, once more: the term "illegal" has been used by the European court of human rights, it's the position of EU, US, not to mention Estonia and it's laws and Constitution. The only thing we can do here, cite what the opposing sources say, thats all. I thought it was clarified earlier. And all the controversies regarding this are laid out elsewhere on WP. but of course in case you think that it would be absolutely necessary to point out in an article about Estonia that Russian Federation doesn't recognize currently a treaty that was signed by Bolshevist Russia and Republic of Estonia in 1920, I personally can't see any problems with that. --98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to add Russia's opinion on the legitimacy of the Estonian state in this article, we don't include Iran's opinion that the USA is the Great Satan in the country article about the USA. We already have an article Estonia-Russia relations, it should go in there. Martintg (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it. the way I've always seen it, if someone wants to point out so badly that Russia doesn't honor it's signature on a treaty with Estonia, I have no problem with that.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

And also, I provided historical reasoning to Stalin's decision of signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (as a reaction to the Munich agreement) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Historical reasoning" is considered synthesis or original research, unless you can provide a source that supports it. See WP:SYNT and WP:OR. By the way, you should sign your messages with ~~~~. Martintg (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Depicting historical background more or less can clarify the picture, and in the article on Munich agreement it is stated that this agreement preceded the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and therefore influenced Stalin's decision, which certainly changes and balances the perception of Russian and Western European politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) oops, forgot to sign again Victor V V (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I mean that the existence of Munich agreement does not need any additional research, this agreement should be only mentioned.Victor V V (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody disputes the existence of the Munich agreement, or that it came before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but claiming a connection between the agreement and the pact without a source that mentions this connection, is synthesis. Martintg (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said about the synthesis between the existence of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and actual war events. How can one prove that the plan and its fulfillment are connected? But ok, I'll bring the researches, there are a lot of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Victor V V (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Well, get what you asked for. I remind that the Munich agreement has been signed on September 30, 1938. I have translated a piece of Stalin's speech from the "Report of Josef Stalin, the General Secretary of the Communist Party Central Committee to the eighteenth Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) , on 10 March 1939 (Отчетный доклад Генерального секретаря ЦК ВКП(б) И. В. Сталина на XVIII съезде ВКП(б) 10 марта 1939 г.):

http://www.hrono.ru/dokum/193_dok/19390310stal.html http://www.hrono.ru/libris/stalin/14-27.html (the complete text of Stalin's report)

"How to explain such one-sided and strange nature of new imperialistic war? How could it happen, that the non-aggressive countries that have such enormous possibilities, have found it so easy to leave without any repulse all their positions and obligations in order to please the aggressors? Doesn’t it speak of the weakness of the non-aggressive states? Certainly not! Non-aggressive, democratic states, if taken together, are undoubtedly stronger than the fascist states both in economic and military respect. Than to explain in this case these systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors? It would be possible to explain it, for example, by the feeling of fear before the revolution which could rise if the non-aggressive states would enter war and the war would lead to a war of a world scale. Bourgeois politicians, of course, know that the first world imperialistic war has given a revolution victory for one of the greatest countries. They are afraid that the second world imperialistic war can also lead to a revolution victory in one or several countries. But even this is not the main reason now. The main reason lies within the fact that the majority of non-aggressive countries, and first of all England and France, has abandoned the policy of collective security, has abandoned the policy of collective repulse to the aggressors, shifting to the position of non-interference, to the position of “neutrality”. Formally, the policy of non-interference could be characterized thus: «let each country defend itself from the aggressors, as it wants and as it can, it doesn't concern us, we will trade both with aggressors and with their victims». In practice, however, the policy of non-interference means policy of appeasement to the aggression, unleashing the war, hence, its transformation into world war. Or, for example, take the example of Germany. They have conceded Austria to it, despite of the obligation to protect its independence, they have conceded Sudetenland area, have left Czechoslovakia to the mercy of fate, having infringed upon all and any obligations, and then began to lie loudly in the press about «the weakness of Russian army», about «decomposition of Russian aircraft industry», about "disorders" in the Soviet Union, pushing Germans further towards the East, promising them an easy loot and saying: you should only begin the war with Bolsheviks, and further all will go just well. It is necessary to recognize that it too is very similar to pushing, encouraging the aggressor. [...] What is even more characteristic, is that some politicians and figures of the press in Europe and in the USA, having lost patience pending «a campaign to the Soviet Ukraine», start to expose themselves the actual underlying reason of the non-interference policy. They directly speak and write in black and white that Germans severely "have disappointed" them, as instead of moving further on the East, against the Soviet Union, they, have you seen, turned on the West and require the colonies to itself. It is possible to think that to Germans were given the areas of Czechoslovakia as the price for the obligation to begin war with the Soviet Union, and Germans refuse to settle the bill now, sending them somewhere far away."

That's it. You see, Stalin puts it quite clear, pointing at the provisions of the Munich agreement. If any more arguments needed - tell me, otherwise I request the Third_opinion Victor V V (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


I'm not getting it, what's the big fuzz about Stalin's reasoning about molotiv-rippendrop pact? In case the guy said so, that's good to know. Just that did he also has to say anything about the secret protocol, that would be much more interesting to know.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that you write the personal names properly first. Then, in this speech Stalin tells about his vision of the Munich Agreement, and as the consequences of the world partition and provocative position of the western countries troubled him so much, then it gives the obvious reasoning for agreement with Germany, and therefore it should be reflected in the article. Without giving such reasoning and background, the article presents Stalin as an aggressor, who planned everything on his own initiative, not being provoked by western policy of appeasement. And this is not correct, because further follow statements based on such false presupposition, which intensifies the biased perception of Stalin, and biased perception of Wester European countries (and then their opinion is used by many as a reference to prove Stalin's 'illegal wrongdoings').--Victor V V (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In no particular order...
  • Stalin attacked Finland when it refused a pact of mutual assistance.
  • Stalin invaded the Baltics.
  • When Hitler invaded Poland starting WWII, Stalin supported Hitler's invasion with radio transmission to the Luftwaffe.
  • Stalin prematurely sent a telegram to Hitler congratulating him on taking Warsaw.
  • When the invasion of Poland was done, Stalin had taken 51% of Polish territory.
  • Stalin told the Latvian prime minister, personally, during "mutual assistance pact negotiations" that he, Stalin, could "invade tomorrow".
If you would like expand on Soviet historiography regarding the pact, what Stalin said can be indicated (summary, not the whole speach). Your contention that Stalin wasn't an aggressor is misguided and uninformed. —PētersV (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also suggest you not take Stalin at his word when it comes to his recounting of motivations or events to anyone, anywhere. —PētersV (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Hitler in declaring war on Stalin did list Stalin going too far in the Baltics as his primary reason. Takes one to know one. —PētersV (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Yes, the summary and link to his speech and reasoning must be indicated, because of the time relation - Munich agreement has been signed only 6 month before the speech. But if you mention "Soviet historiography", then perhaps we should split the estimations of the events and provide indications like "according to Soviet historiography", "Estonian historiography", "US historiography", "British historiography", etc. - would not it be more correct, as it is known that each of these countries used and uses manipulative methods?
Regarding Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, I would advise you not to make any personal remarks about my country leader, and not compare him to Hitler. I could then advise you not to take anyone's words as a reference - isn't it an absurd? (Stalin himself is quite objective in his estimations, and he was also a scientific researcher in many fields (philosophy, history, linguistics, etc.), therefore I do not see any reason to ignore his words (if not personal disregard, which from my side could be addressed to any member of NATO - but that's just personal opinion, and I doubt that you would delete all the NATO countries' citations if I prove that NATO is an evil aggressor, isn't it?). Would not it be just perfect if you could omit any citation that you personally (or collectively) disregard? Stalin himself is a reliable source, like any official, and he is not Hitler, just like many other leaders are not Hitlers. I think it is clear.
--Victor V V (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it would be appropriate to add Stalin's speeches to an article about Estonia. seems like something more for the article about Stalin himself or since it's about the pact, why not to add it there if it's such an important aspect in your opinion.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Victor V - Stalin is not a reliable source for accounts of events. I regret to inform you Stalin is not the leader of your country. Stalin is dead. The USSR is dead. Reputable scholarly research regarding Stalin's murderous reign is irrefutable and not a matter of "personal opinion." Not Hitler? Well, yes, Stalin did kill more innocents than Hitler. As for linguistic research, perhaps you refer to Stalin's returning "Moldovan" to its Cyrillic roots? An invention, yes. A linguist? Hardly.
You confuse Being Stalinist with Being Russian and Defending Stalinism with Defending Mother Russia. My sincerest sympathies that you are so steeped in Stalinist fiction. But do not expect to make a home for that fiction on Wikipedia. —PētersV (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I read lot about Stalin, and I can argue that there are no "reliable sources" that prove the numbers of the repressions cited in the western materials. I myself know some people who saw him personally, each one of them respects him (--Victor V V (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)you can compare Hitler to American presidents who used nuclear bombs against civilians or put own etnical Japanese citizens to the concentration camps during the WW2, or the imperialistic British who invaded India and China, calculate their casualties - compare if you like, but it it necessary? Facts are facts, this is not the place for poetical metaphors, there was only 1 Hitler). Anyway, this is not about Stalin, but about the Pact and the relevant Report by the Secretary General of the Communist Party. I am defending this certain point because USSR-Nazi agreement was a reaction, and if you study the material and try to forget the prejudice for a little - it would be clear. This topic is not well-researched yet because it is not in the interest of England, France and Germany to provide studies on this issue.

By the way - maybe someone of you have the text of unofficial talks between Hitler and Mannerheim in 1942 in Finland? One my Estonian friend told me there's some useful information there about the pre-war disposition.--Victor V V (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


And I think there is a lot of material in the article (even without references, just biased comments about USSR) that is much less related to the issue, than mentioning (not even adding Stalin's speeches, but mentioning it and summarizing, as PētersV suggested). Why not adding more background information?Victor V V (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree with "98.212.196.116": This article is not the place to engage in debates about Stalin's particular motives in ordering the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe.
It is sufficient for historical analysis that the following facts are recorded in the article: (a) Estonia itself perceived the Soviet takeover as an illegal act of aggression and (b) it continues to do so; (c) the consensus of international opinion at the time also perceived the annexation as illegal and (d) it continues to do so today; and (e) only the USSR/Russia (ie, the aggressor) then and now views the annexation of Estonia as legitimate.
That almost 70 years after the event only the aggressor (or if you prefer, "invading") country should be the only source of legitimising argumentation renders such arguments immediately suspect.
Further, the claim that Stalin was provoked by the West into absorbing Estonia (and other Eastern European states) and that he acted with legitimate intent does not explain why subsequent to the invasion he should order the deportation and execution of tens of thousands of Estonian civilians. This simple fact, perhaps more than any other, speaks to the true nature of Stalin's intentions and demolishes Victor V.V.'s claim that to depict Stalin as an "aggressor" is a "false presupposition".
Quite frankly, this is not the forum to attempt a revisionist rewriting of twentieth-century history nor much less for extolling the supposed virtues of the world's deadliest dictator.

Lkbunker (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree with "98.212.196.116": This article is not the place to engage in debates about Stalin's particular motives in ordering the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe.

not the debate, but the fact that there are such debates and there are nistorical documents for such debates. Do you see my point? --Victor V V (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the place for discussion here (at least it is called so). Not even a 100 years passed, not all the materials are extracted from the archives. There was an opinion that only the countries that won in the Cold war can deliver their opinion in Wikipedia (Martintg placed it on my talk page) Why did the Stalin order deportation? Because they were against the regime. That's simple, isn't it? Like in any country after the civil war, if you look at the history. There were concentration camps in America after their civil war, in Africa - there were camps for boers, these are facts, and the article serves to deliver facts, but not to attach pro-Estonian or pro-Stalinist vision. But if Stalin is factual leader - you cannot ignore him and his speeches, that are very precise. --Victor V V (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was parodying the Russian government, who routinely accuses Estonia of "revising the outcome of WW2", so please, no revision of the outcome of the Cold War! Martintg (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


It is a fact that the Soviet Union was the only country among the victors of the Second World War (a) to forcibly annex previously independent nations and (b) to institute mass-scale projects of political repression and deportation against civilians in these countries.
It is indeed true that the US ran its own "Japanese American Internment" camps during the war, and it is also a fact that the British interned Boer women and children during the Boer War. But to compare such camps with the Gulag Archipelago is to commit a simple but fallacious simplification, which is to apply the same label ("camps") to qualitatively different projects in order to mask the significant differences between them. No civilian was summarily executed at the US camps; whereas, for example, in Estonia in 1940 civilians were executed merely for not having their passports stamped for the rigged vote approving Soviet annexation. Also, significantly, the US president and Congress officially apologised to interned people in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988; similarly, Britain later referred to its Boer camps as "shameful", and you would be hard-pressed today to find any British politician willing to defend the repression of the Boers. No such apology or recognition has been forthcoming for the much graver crimes committed by the Soviet oppressors.
"Why did the Stalin order deportation? Because they were against the regime. That's simple, isn't it?" It is indeed simple if you subscribe to the principles of political terror that characterised the Stalinist dictatorship. But this article is about Estonia—its people, its history and its culture—not about such political and historical debates. Other articles exist that are more appropriate for such discussion.
"You cannot ignore him [Stalin] and his speeches, that are very precise." Actually, it is an established guideline of historical methodology that leaders' speeches do not typically constitute "hard" evidence in historical argumentation, as these are often intended to obscure and distort original intent or as post facto justifications of policy, a tendency which is particularly evident in undemocratic regimes like that of the Soviet Union.
Lkbunker (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deportations and executions were not merely because of people being against the regime, but also to cause terror. As an examplary executions of people who were likely to be against the regime. Not to mention the fact that many (khm, most) estonian farmers were deported because soviets wanted the land. In one of the estonian towns, the deportation of farmers were planned, but as germans destroyed the railway it was considered to be "infeasible" to transport people using trucks. So they just took people in the forest and shot them. Documents about the event are still available in the museum. Suva Чего? 12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length of some sections

I think some of the sections are getting a little bit too long, particularly Estonia#Estonia_in_World_War_II, it gives the impression that WW2 was the only thing that ever happened. We have sub-articles that go into great detail, so I'm going to try to copy edit those sections to be a little bit more shorter. Martintg (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes - please tell your opinion

I suggested some changes, such as:

  • The Prime Minister and the President: added names and images
  • Summarized military section, removed overly detail and duplication.
  • Merged "Pollution" and "Resources" section. Moved tax issues from "Resources" section to the appropriate section.
  • Removed lengthly natural resources list. Why so much space is wasted on natural resources whose economic significance is tiny and their abundance is not different from most countries? Wouldn't there be much more suitable issues to cover?
  • Moved "Education" and "IT industry" sections under "Economy" section
  • Restored subsection headers, which should make readability much better. Just compare the two versions.
  • Transformed some tables and images to "right-floating layout", which should make text more readable to the eye.

These are contributed in this version by AlexelK. Go see!

The Karabinier (talk · contribs) removed all contributions in the current version by Karabinier.

Which version you prefer? Please tell your opinion! I'm not going to contribute to this article anymore. If any of my contributions seem good, go and merge them into the article.Turkuun (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The PM and President have already mentione din the article -. country infobox - as this article is about a country not the politicial leaders. There should be an image about the government with all the ministries instead of the PM photo.

I will add more comments tomorrow asap.Karabinier (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)