Talk:Battle of Narva (1944)/Archive 1

Two operations = campaign?

Battle of Narva spanned two operations, the Kingisep-Gdov offensive operation and the Baltic strategic offensive operation, isn't more accurate to call it a campaign? Martintg (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Battle of the Narva is an English translation of popularised German name. The Leningrad-Novgorod offensive (and Kingisepp-Gdov offensive operation) was a part of the Winter-Spring Campaign of 1944 (1 January – 31 May). The Narva offensive started on the 24 July, and along with Operation Bagration and the Baltic strategic offensive operation fall into the Summer-Autumn Campaign of 1944 (1 June - 31 December). Much of the Campaign planning was based on seasonal considerations due to the length of time of their executions. Interestingly I just discussed this in regards to the Burma Campaign. Could you please revert to operation? In fact there were several independent operations, and battles, and if you continue to expand the article we will get to them. It seems to me that if you adopt the structure for the article I suggested, you may have an easier time with identifying what happened where and to whom. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 08:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wehermacht commanders

I'm not sure what role Georg Lindemann played in the battles being described, but it was in the 18. Armee AO.--mrg3105mrg3105 04:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Divisions were split off from 18. Armee, and formed into Army Detachment Narwa in February, which reported directly to Army Group Nord, so I don't think he played any role here. Martintg (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know that. You may want to say that in the article because from Soviet records and maps the 18. Armee looks definitely involved--mrg3105mrg3105 05:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gnessen" Regiment

Is this possibly a regiment formed from Gnesende, i.e., soldiers recovering from non-debilitating wounds? Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratch the question. Grenadier Regiment Gnesen (for Gniezno, Poland) was formed in February 1944 in Wehrkreis XXI from replacement army battalions in Poznan, Gniezno, and Kalisz. Disbanded August 1944. Source is Tessin. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Berlin or von Oven in charge of XXXXIII Armeekorps?

Have information that shows the commander of German XXXXIII Armeekorps in March 1944 was Karl von Oven, not Berlin? Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

According to www.axishistory.com, Oven commanded XXXXIII until March 25th, and was replaced by Ehrenfried Böge [1], while Berlin commanded XXVI between May and June [2]. It needs further investigation. Martintg (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet units

I am puzzled why some Soviet Rifle Corps, like the 8th, 14th and 30th, were split out from the Armies and listed separately, were they not subordinated to any army on that front? My references indicates otherwise. Martintg (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The changes were made to align the orders of battle to a common time period (1 March 44). By that point, some of the corps allocated as front reserves during the initial stages of the battle had been returned to control of front HQ. The source for the subordination of the units is the official Soviet Army order of battle for that date. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

More research is needed, but yes, there were many formations and units that were cross-attached from ARMY TO army and between Fronts, or even moved from geographic sectors of the larger front. For this reason all non-core formations and units in the Soviet army were prefixed by 'independent'. The designation changed from time to time, and a Corps could serve as independent for a time, then be assigned as a core unit of an Army, and then become independent again at a later stage in the war. Here [3] none are listed as independent, as the 18th here

[4]--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 22:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet losses

It is not clear for me why the number of Soviet losses is given here based on the Estonian sources, not Krivosheev. According to the standard rules, Soviet sources (preferably, Krivosheev) should be used. He gives much smaller numbers, by the way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, there are countries with uprising nationalism (you of course know which country I am talking about), they want to make their country seem somewhat important and believe in fairy tales (propaganda) about Soviets losing millions of men attacking small countries, which wanted to be independent. do not bother editing ANYTHING. People like that are on this article 24/7 and will change every rational entry, and will be trolling Wikipedia with their nationalist ideas and will not accept any sources that do not state millions of casualties for Soviets and hundreds for Estonians. New policy, you see, but what can you do if there has been some serious brainwashing done. :( You can only hope these people will have reason returned to them. Farewell.99.231.50.118 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Appeals to morality are useless. Bringing sources to support a more precise number of Soviet casualties is far more preferable. I understand, the problem with Krivosheev is a lack of data on operational losses for the scope defined in this article. --Illythr (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Illythr, you're quite correct. Krivosheev does not give numbers for the Soviet Narva operations in 1944. The Red Army archives are currently closed to non-Russian investigators. Pavel, you are welcome to present a sourced number of Soviet casualties in Narva, 1944, operation by operation. Currently, the article is not presenting the 'soviets losing millions of men' but 480,000 as the Soviet wounded, killed, and POW. This is a reasonable amount in the terms of the 'Great Patriotic War' as Pavel probably calls it. Considering nationalism, I would like to correct Pavel that it is not in the uprise currently in Estonia but has been relatively high throughout the history of the nation. Certainly there are downsides to it but it is impossible to imagine how the country could have survived without the high level of nationalism. --Erikupoeg (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid responding to off topic statements, as this is bound to create only more such flooding and nobody will convince anybody of anything they did not believe in the first place. --Illythr (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out, that, despite popular belief, statements about Estonians being brainwashed nationalists, fascists, racists and so on is not going to make the main contributor of this article (who is apparently Estonian) any more appreciative of the Soviet or modern Russian point of view. Nor will it make more precise and less controversial sources pop out of thin air. --Illythr (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material which advances a position

The last section of the article is a clear example of Synthesis of published material which advances a position. The editors put together multiple sources to reach the conclusion that is absent in the cited sources. This manner of writing should be avoided in WP.
Concretely, no source (besides Laar's book) contain information that support the editor's statement that the importance of the Battle of Narva is understated.
I didn't find the statement that "As the outcomes were not achieved, the Soviet authors claim, that the intentions were limited from the very start of the campaign." (or something of that kind) in the source cited. In addition, no sources has been provided in support of the statement that the comprehensive Krivosheev's book (used by many Wikipedia editors as a reliable source) deliberately holds back the Soviet losses for any reason.
I propose to re-write this section entirely, or to delete it.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"no sources has been provided in support of the statement that the comprehensive Krivosheev's book (used by many Wikipedia editors as a reliable source) deliberately holds back the Soviet losses for any reason" - The source is Laar's book. And the dates in Krivosheev's book account only for the battles which were successful for the Soviets - Leningrad-Novgorod offensive and the capture of Narva in July. Laar does not provied alternative numbers, but uses the numbers of Krivosheev in their correct context. Battles for Narva from the beginning of the campaign until July 24th are presented nowhere in Krivosheev. There are numbers for July 24th - July 30th, and yet again nothing until the Baltic Offensive in September. At the same time Leningrad Front suffered the loss of 600,000 men. Provided, that from February to September the Leningrad Front was involved in no other battles than the Fourth Strategic Offensive in Finland and battles in Narva, and having the exact number of casualties in the Finnish front, only one conclusion can be made - the rest of the numbers are available for the battle of Narva.Erikupoeg (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral?

According to the article, the Estonians were urged by their government to fight against the Soviets, and many Estonians responded with great enthusiasm. As a result, the Estonians (with Nazi help) managed to halt the major Soviet offensive for months inflicting immense losses on them.
That fits the definition of a belligerent. However, it contradicts to the common point of view that Estonia was neutral during WWII. To eliminate this contradiction, one of two things should be done:

• To describe the Estonian war efforts in much more modest manner (using appropriate sources), or
• To change the status of Estonia from Neutral to Axis co-belligerent in that article and in the WWII template.

The claim that some country protected its neutrality during prolonged bloody battle sounds absolutely ridiculous. This logical inconsistency has to be fixed.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no Estonian government during WWII and Estonia as a country did not participate in the war. I don't know what is going on with the article but I'll look into it as soon as I can.--Termer (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So far I can't see anything like that in the article. It must be that "Estonian Self-Government" is simply misleading. The so called "Estonian Self-Government" was the civilian administration of the German occupation authorities. It has nothing to do with Government of Estonia.--Termer (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The ref [10] (this is a web site of Estonian ministry of foreign affair) states:"At the beginning of 1944, Estonia's underground National Committee and its constitutional Prime Minister acting as president, Jüri Uluots, called upon Estonians not to avoid the German mobilisation, irrespective of the fact that it violated international law. Estonians hoped that with German weapons they could create a national army, and thus be able to prevent a new Soviet occupation, as well as be able to restore Estonia's independence."
In other words, the contemporary Estonians recognize the facts that 1.there was an underground National Committee and its constitutional Prime Minister acting as president. 2.This commitee planned to organize Estonian national army. 3. The aim of that army was to fight against the Soviets.
According to other Estonian sources, the Estonians fought bravely and efficiently. Therefore, I see no reason to consider them neutral, provided that we admit all stated above to be correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly do you see The claim that some country protected its neutrality during prolonged bloody battle? It says at the Attempt to restore Estonian Government that the proclaimed (not recognized by either the Germans or Russians) Estonian government declared its neutrality in the war. And if the declaration including the hopeless attempt to restore countries independence "sounds absolutely ridiculous" or not is open for discussion of course, but not on WP but among historians and scholars. In any case, the fact that Estonians ceased power in Tallinn before the Germans had left and before the Soviets arrived has been noted for example in the Bulletin of International News By Royal Institute of International Affairs Information Dept in 1944.

Sept 21 1944 - patriots in Tallinn seized Cathedral Hill, with the Government buildings, and proclaimed a national Government headed by Otto Tief, who ordered the Germans forces to leave and appealed to the Russians to recognize Estonian independence.

--Termer (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment
1.there was an underground National Committee and its constitutional Prime Minister acting as president. Not recognized by anybody either de jure or de facto in the world.

2.This commitee planned to organize Estonian national army. yes, it seized power from Germans on Sept 21 1944. the attepmt to create Estonian national army was led by Johan Pitka. But it didn't work out.

3. The aim of that army was to fight against the Soviets. like already pointed out, it seized power from Germans and it attempted to fight against the Soviets but what happened to Johan Pitka and his units is not known.--Termer (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sept 21 act and the document I cite are two different things. The former and the latter were separated by eight months of (successful) battles that halted Soviet offencive and cost (according to Estonian sources) about 200,000 Soviet lives (a leon's share of that losses the WP authors implicitly credit to Estonian conscripts and volunteers). Had Finland claimed neutrality in 1944, would it be sufficient to consider her neutral in WWII? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is also true that the general conscription call initiated by the Germans on Feb 1 1944 was seen by the Estonian underground government as a chance to recreate the Estonian national army, but it didn't work out so. The bottom line of this is that nobody in the world has recognized the underground government as a legal government of Estonia. In case you're after saying that Estonia as a country acted in the war on the side of the axes, it's going to be difficult since the only legal representation of Estonia were The consulates in New York and London who had declared Estonias neutrality in the war when it started and the position never changed.--Termer (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of international recognition, the question remains: had the Estonians been able to play any sufficient active role and could they pursue their own military goals? If they did it, and succeeded (at least temporarily), then they must be considered a belligerent. If not, then we cannot speak about any separate Estonian goals and achievements in the Battle of Narva.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that sure what exactly are you after. Estonians surely had their coal, restoring the independence of the country. The goal of the underground government was to hold the Soviets out of Estonia until an international piece conference. Achievements were none other than the Soviet advance was halted for an half a year. That in it's irony benefited mostly the Germans only who never wanted to hear anything about independent Estonia, and in that respect didn't differ from the Soviets in any way if you'd look at it from an Estonian POV. --Termer (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. regarding must be considered a belligerent. Any "must be" on WP has to be based on WP:RS. in case you have any sources available that do say so, please do not hesitate to introduce the facts and/or opinions into the article that are based on such secondary published sources.--Termer (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To halt the advancement of the Soviet troops for half a year is a considerable achievement (at least, it is represented in such a way in the article), especially for so small country. On other hand, much more Estonians (including volunteers) served in Waffen SS than in the Red Army. The first is sufficient to mention them as belligerents, whereas the second requires to call them Nazi co-belligerents (similar to Finns).

As regards to WP:RS. If we treat some Estonian sources using the laws of formal logics, and, this formal logics tells us that, according to that sources Estonia should be considered a belligerent, then we have to do the follofing: 1. To try to found any reputable source that states that Estonia was a belligerent. 2. If no such sources have been found, then we must conclude that a) the Estonian sources used in this article are questionable; b)the war efforts and achievements of the Estonians have been overstated in the article; c)any mention of specific Estonian goals should be removed.
In other words, if one source claims that Peter killed Paul, and another source claims Piter didn't kill anybody, then at least one of there sources is unreliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems you're mixing up Estonia as a state with Estonians in WWII? Since Estonia as a country was occupied by Soviet Union in 1940, the country ceased to exist de facto and the only de jure representation of Estonia as a country that was recognized by lets say the US was the Estonian consulate in New York. The consulate had declared neutrality in the war on behalf of Estonian state. Now, what you are mostly talking about could be classified as "private affairs of Estonians", that is the way for example Estonian Government in Exile was called by the government of Norway in the 1950's. The subject of 1944 including the Narva battle in Estonia is controversial and it's far from a general consensus how to go about it. Opinions vary on what was going on with the underground government and it's involvement with the German conscription call. But the fact that Estonia as a state that existed only de jure had declared neutrality in the conflict remains. --Termer (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To declare neutrality and to be neutral is not the same. Regarding the "private affair of Estonians", let me point out that the USSR is listed among belligerents of Spanish Civil War although only a limited amount of volunteers fought there. Situation with Flying Tigers was similar. The fact is that considerable amount of Estonians fought in Waffen SS, some of them volunarily. Partially that was a result of the call of the organ that is considered a predecessor of the present Estonian government (by that gomernment itself). If these facts are true, the Estonian flag should be along with the Nazi one in the info table.
I don't insist on that, if someone made the article more modest.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I missed that one before. I haven't looked at the article in that respect. What you can't do though, use the insignia of the Republic of Estonia in the context. Which doesn't include the insignia of Estonian Waffen SS units that were involved and you are talking about. --Termer (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything you addressed with a-b-c has been spelled out I hope in Estonia in World War II. I wouldn't be so sure if removing the Estonian POV from this article would be necessary since according to WP:NPOV The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. In case anything seems unclare or not according to the sources provided, it should be addressed of course.--Termer (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against presenting different points of view, provided that all of them are not self-contradictory. Othervise, Wikipedia will become unreadable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the self-contradiction here? Estonians were fighting on both sides of the frontline, occasionally one another. The short-lived Estonian Government opposed both of the occupiers.Erikupoeg (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out that a controversial subject could be self-contradictory and I agree that in many respects the Estonian involvement in WWII could be seen as such. There is a saying that liberators liberated Estonia from other liberators, by referring to the German claim that they liberated Estonia from the Soviets and then again the Soviets say they liberated Estonia from Germans. And in case it makes any sense, it should spell out the essence of this self-contradiction. Things are never straight forward or simply black and white with controversial subjects.--Termer (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a way, how any of the major facts presented in the article could be left out. I'm willing to continue the discussion about adding Estonia to Axis belligerents, whenever a source pops up claiming so. Until that, it would be WP:OR. Erikupoeg (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you can't add the Republic of Estonia and it's insignia to the Axis. In case Estonian involvement has to be highlighted the following insignia should be used:--Termer (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I mean, sorry, Paul get a grip! You can't demand hiding the fact, that Estonian units were among the major forces in the battles of Narva, and you can't add a non-existent country among the belligerents of anybody. Erikupoeg (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot, and I am not intended to demand to hide any facts. What I do demand is to obey the rules of formal logic. Although different POWs can and have to exist on some historical events, the tertium non datur rule must be observed by all sides. If all Estonians who fought during WWII were conscripted against their will and didn't pursue any separate aims, and the Estonian government, or its substitute, or its predecessor, didn't take any steps to urge Estonian citizens to fight against any side (Soviets or Nazi), then Estonia, without any doubts, remained neutral during WWII (and any mentioning of large amount of Estonian volunteers, Estonian contribution, or Estonian goals should ne removed).

Although they wanted to step up for their country, none of them were volunteers for three reasons: 1)They were drafted in mandatory general conscription, 2) They were denied their wish to form national units (pursuant to international law for occupied territories) 3)They were forced into Waffen-SS. Even if the de jure Head of State's speech urged anybody to join the SS, it mostly just expressed, what the Estonians were thinking at the moment. The National Government did not acquire any real power before the few days in September. The Estonians could not do what they wished for, but they still could wish. The Estonian aims section tries to depict, what Estonians were desperate for and what they did do get it. Erikupoeg (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

However, if the Estonians pursued their own goals, and did that voluntarily (at least partially), and inflicted considerable losses on any (of both) major sides of the conflict, they were combatants and Estonian nation was a belligerent.

That would be an exaggeration of the liberties, the Estonian nation had at the moment. Erikupoeg (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the Estonian government wasn't recognized internationally doesn't change a picture much, because the fact of annexation of Estonia hadn't been recognized either.

That's true, but the issue of having actual power is relevant here. Erikupoeg (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, does contemporary Estonian government recognize "underground National Committee and its constitutional Prime Minister acting as president, Jüri Uluots"?)

Yes, de jure he was the Head of State, but de facto he had no power over the Estonians. Erikupoeg (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the Estonians fought against both the Soviets and Nazi doesn't change a picture either: Finland also fought against both the Soviets and Germany (after 1944).

Yes, but not simultaneously. Erikupoeg (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding to "hiding facts". One has to distinguish between hiding facts and presenting correct facts in the non self-contradictory manner.
If, for instance, you claim that, according to you sources, the number of Soviet troops was 200,000 and casualties were 480,000, then you simply demonstrate either your inability to work with sources, or questionable quality of the sources used.

I hope it's not news to you, that people can be transported to the frontline. All along 1944, the number of Soviet troops present in the surroundings of Narva was never higher than 200,000, while during the eight months of combat, 480,000 were lost. Just compare it to the Battle of Verdun for instance, where the French side with the strength of 30,000 lost 378,000 men, and the 150,000 Germans lost 330,000. If you have an alternative number for the casualties of the battle of Narva, I propose to present both, but I don't know, how are you gonna get it without adding numbers up in the Soviet official history, which counts as WP:OR.

(by the way, a good style of writing requires to use the Soviet data for the Soviets, the German data for the Germans etc. If you failed to obtain these data from numerous Soviet and Russian books, it is not a reason for using highly questionable Laar's numbers).

Once again, no Laar's numbers exist. They are official Soviet numbers of the casualties of Leningrad Front in 1944, deducted the losses in every other operation they were involved with during the period. Soviet war history nor any other source points out any number specifically for the campaign of Narva. Laar is just the first to point out a number within the Soviet data, that is more or less applicable for the whole Narva campaign.Erikupoeg (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you claim that in Estonia the Soviets suffered losses comparable with those in the Battle of Smolensk (1943), and the Estonians volunteers can be (at least, partially) credited for that, then you must be consistent and to come to a conclusion that the Estonians must be mentioned as a separate side of the conflict.

While it's true, they had major impact in keeping the Soviets at bay, and they did it for nationalist aspirations, they did not act as a nation, but as conscripts forced into the Waffen-SS, like the SS formations of Russians and Ukrainians. That does not make Soviet Union a Nazi belligerent Erikupoeg (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If that conclusion contradicts to all available sources, then either your sources are not valid, or you represented them in a wrong way.
One way or the another, this article demonstrates a lack of respect to a readers, in particular, to their ability to think logically. That has to be fixed.
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a very complicated matter and should be presented as such. What you have proposed, will oversimplify it in the maner of "The Estonian Republic was a Nazi belligerent" or "Estonians had a minor impact on the Battle of Narva". I'm pretty sure, you agree, that none of the statements are true, but that seems to be your drift. The truth is a combination of the two simple statements with the opposites and the middle grounds between them, no more simpler than the article in its present state.Erikupoeg (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, all your concerns regarding Estonian nation was a belligerent might be valid just that there is no mach for the idea in any conventional history books that would back up you theories. So these kind of questions are not going to be solved at WP talk pages. The only thing we can do here is cite what the published sources say.--Termer (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't straw man me. I propose no theories. I even propose no concrete way to present the facts. The only think I request is a logical consistency. If you found any logical flaws in conclusions I made based only on the data from that article, please, point out at them. Otherwise, you have to concede that according to the article the Estonians should be considered Nazi co-belligerents.
Note, I don't insist on that conclusion. I will accept any conclusion provided it is logically consistent. However, if the idea that "Estonian nation was a belligerent" is not supported by "any conventional history books" then the whole article is wrong, because the article presents the battle of Narva as a major one, and the role of the Estonian as a considerable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that history is not 100% logical like mathematics. Perhaps that would explain you why Estonia as a nation has never been considered a belligerent since the US declared the Baltic Legions that had fought the Soviets not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States. And all Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian citizens were considered as the citizens of their countries in the American, British and French occupation zones in Germany after the war, unlike the Soviet zone of occupation where they were considered Soviet citizens.--Termer (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Aristotle times, mathematics, physics, jurisprudence, history and other branches of science share the one key thing, a formal logic. That is their key common feature that distinguish them from other kinds of human activity: art, religion etc. If you write something like a scientific article (including a WP) you must obey a logic, and, conversely, you leave a field of science (including a history) immediately after you refuse to follow the logical laws.

I agree, that the article will have to make sense as a whole, but what you are proposing, is throwing the 'baby' of the true complexity of the topic out with the 'bathwater' of irrationality. Erikupoeg (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As regards to the notorious decision of the US commission, during XX century the US supported a vast number of dictator regimes and criminal organizations throughout the world provided that the formers opposed the USSR. The last example was Augusto Pinochet. I recall, Madeleine Albright apologized, on behalf of the US, for the support of his criminal regime, and conceded that that was a bad mistake.
As regards to "American, British and French occupation zones in Germany..." etc, do you think that could serve a proof that major Western countries recognized the Baltic countries as still existing during WWII and after that? If so, this not recognized annexation by the USSR couldn't be an obstacle for considering some of these countries belligerents during WWII. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, only five countries reckognized the annexation of the Baltic States de jure, while the Allies never discussed it after the Atlantic Charter. Churchill has said, that the Baltic states were a prize to Stalin for fighting on the right side. This is pretty basic. Erikupoeg (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Paul Siebert It doesn't look like we are communicating really. Once more, it doesn't matter what I or you think, the only thing that matters is what do the historians say. In case you are interested in the subject of the nonrecognition policies , there are articles on WP on the subject and a number of books published that look into this question in utmost detail. And once more, it's not up to me or you to decide here if anything could or couldn't be an obstacle for considering some of these countries belligerents during WWII. In case these countries are considered belligerents by anybody, it should be added to relevant articles by pointing out according to whom exactly.--Termer (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Eric. The discussion is too branched to respond everything simultaneously, so I'll respond later.

RE:Termer. I don't think so. I got a feeling we started finding common points. So both you and I (and, as far as I understand, Erik) agree about two things:

• No reputable historians consider Estonia or the Estonians a separate belligerent.
• The fact of annexation is not a reason for that.
  Am I right?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something there, but the fact of annexation has everything to do with it. An occupied country cannot be a belligerent of anybody. Erikupoeg (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what Paul's saying, is that if we don't label the Republic of Estonia as a belligerent, the article will have to be re-written and the role of Estonian national aspiration diminished or the significance of the whole campaign dwarfed. Erikupoeg (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an opinion that doesn't make any sense to me. The Republic of Estonia existed only at the Estonian consulates in New York and London at the time. I'm not that sure what the role of Estonian national aspiration would be. The story about the Estonian underground government etc. is written down in the article Estonia in World War II and it doesn't need to be repeated in every related articles. But since there were about 60,000 or so native Estonians fighting in the battle, that much is relevant to the article here. --Termer (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I took "The story about the Estonian underground government etc." from the sourse cited in that article. What we have: 1)Estonia had the foreign representative in two major Western powers, both powers recognized the status of these consulates; 2) There was an underground government in the home country seeking to create the army, to take a power and to re-establish the independent state - quite a close parallelism with Poland, isn't it? And the parallelism becomes even close if we remember that in both countries neither government possessed a real power. But, nevertheless, Poland is considered a belligerent by everybody, whereas Estonia isn't. What is the difference?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: sorry but your question No reputable historians consider Estonia or the Estonians a separate belligerent->The fact of annexation is not a reason for that above didn't ring a bell, what exactly did you have in mind? There are many concepts of history on the subject, depending on the POV. --Termer (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. I am just asking if I understand you correct. My next questions will depend on your answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that sure I'm following you exactly, even though the typo fix made it a bit more clear. And I'm afraid I wouldn't have any answers really since 'reputable historians' have not found a consensus on the subject. Other than none of the historians I'm aware of have considered Estonia or the Estonians a single belligerent in the context. And it has everything to do with the annexation.--Termer (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to make myself more clear. Those WP editors who oppose naming Estonia a separate belligerent use two major arguments: a)there is no reputable sources stating that; b) Estonia as a state didn't exist during 1940-45. Therefore my questions are: Do you support the claim a)?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

-Poland is considered a belligerent by everybody, whereas Estonia isn't. What is the difference?->Unlike Poland Estonia had been annexed with the USSR in 1940 as the result of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.--Termer (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So what? Poland had been occupied and annexed as a result of the same pact. What was the difference? --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, only the eastern parts of Poland were annexed with Soviet Union not the whole country like Estonia. Therefore, for example from the Soviet POV all Estonians, including the ones who were fighting in Narva against Soviet troops were citizens of Soviet Union, not the citizens of Estonia any more. Since Soviet Union didn't recognize the goals of the independence movement in Estonia but wanted to paint a picture that all 'the Estonians' and 'Estonia' had joined the Soviet Union voluntarily. Therefore having Estonia as a country that was part of the alliance fighting against Soviet Union was out of the question in Soviet history. This is my own commentary to the events and shouldn't be taken as a fact but just as one of many possible reasons why it has never been suggested by anybody that Estonia as a country took part of WWII, and if it did, only as Estonian SSR within Soviet Union. That was the Soviet POV, there are other POV-s like already mentioned above. History writing is most often dictated by politics, not by the formal logic of the Aristotle times like you suggested.--Termer (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought we both agreed to live the Soviet POV beyond the scope as irrelevant. If we haven't done that yet, let's do it now. Argee?
If yes, let me continue based on the Western POV exclusively. According to it, all Estonians were still citizens of occupied Estonian republic. Let me describe the situation during 1941-44. Both Poland and Estonia were occupied by Germany. Both these countries were trying to re-establish their independence. Both these countries had underground governments and some representatives in Western democraties. Both home underground governments had no real power, and foreign representatives had very limited or no connection with their home countries. Both nation formed a national miliatry units that served under command of a foreign state. Nevertheless, Poland (as nation) was considered to play an active role during WWII (many historians consider her military dontribution to be even larger than that of France), whereas almost all Western historians (and Sovet too, for obvious reasons) refuse to consider Estonia an active participant of the war.
To your opinion, what is the reason for that? (Once again, the Soviet POV is not considered)--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The similarities don't end with that, Estonian ships that were in international waters during Soviet takeover in 1940 refused to return to occupied Estonia and the ships and the Estonian sailors like the Polish ended up serving in the British navy during WWII. So there are many similarities between Poland and Estonia in WWII.

Now, while asking why is it that historians refuse to consider 'Estonia' as an active participant of the war, then you can't get around from the Soviet POV. Even though the western allies didn't recognize the annexation de jure , they did recognize it de facto, especially since Soviet Union was still very useful ally against Nazi Germany during the war.

The differences with Poland: Estonia was factually part of Soviet Union since 1940 and not an independent country any more. The Estonian Defence forces were incorporated into the Red Army, even though the most of them deserted soon after, the fact remains, Estonian Army seased to exist in 1940. You can't make a country that doesn't exist and doesn't have an army any more de facto an ally of anybody. True, Poland was not a country de facto either during the war but it reemerged right after WWII, even though as a Soviet satellite, it was still a country on the map unlike Estonia. Also the situation with the Polish and Estonian Army was very different: Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II#Polish_Forces_.28West.29. The Poles managed to recreate their national army unlike Estonians who ended up fighting in Soviet and German and Finnish, some in British uniforms.

The western POV has been also already discussed, led by the US the Estonian annexation with USSR wasn't recognized as legal. the US kept recognizing the Estonian Consulate General in New York as the only legal representation of Estonian Government, meaning the Republic of Estonia, and not the 1944 underground government in Estonia or the governmet of Estonian SSR. Since the consulate had declared Estonian neutrality in the war, the US couldn't have considered Estonia to be an ally of anybody in the war.

This takes us back to several postings ago when I said that all your points might be valid, there is still nobody around who'd say Estonia as a country participated in the war. And until no change has been made in any history books, there is nothing really we can do about it.--Termer (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

...which does not give us the right to delete any major facts about the participation of Estonians in WWII, even if they appear controversial to the fact that Estonia is not listed among the belligerents. Erikupoeg (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

....For obvious reasons, mostly due to the Soviet POV the majority of history books have been silent about the Estonian involvement in the battles of Narva. Since it's getting more and more attention from historians after the collapse of the Soviet Union, WP should naturally get updated and list all the POV-s and facts available that are relevant to the subject.--Termer (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Your position is becoming clearer now for me. Everything looks more reasonable. There are several things, however, that I still cannot understand.

• I see no reason why the Estonian republic insignia cannot be in the info box. In military WP articles, including those mentioned above, corresponding insignia are present in the info box even if the state itself didn't participate in the war. For instance, neither the US nor UK were involved into Second Sino-Japanese war, however, the US flag is in the info box due to Flying Tigers, the voluntary unit. (The fact that the US declared a war on Japan by that moment is irrelevant, because the UK did the same, however she is not considered a SSJW belligerent. On other hand, the USSR was neutral during SSJW, however, her flag is present because of Soviet volunteers) Therefore I conclude that placing Estonian flag into the info box wouldn't be against WP rules.
  The argument about non-voluntary conscription of the Estonians doesn't work either. Erikpoeg writes about "the role of Estonian national aspiration" during the battle of Narva. If I understand him correctly, the Estonians didn't oppose to the forceful mobilization, went to serve in the German Waffen SS with great enthusiasm and, after being conscripted, fought bitterly. In other words, their war efforts were much more impressive than those of other ordinary forcefully mobilized European nationals, therefore they can and have to be in the info box.
  The arguments about Estonian neutrality or non-existence don't work too. The examples above explain irrelevance of the former. As regards to the latter, the US/UK did't recognize the annexation of Estonia (at least, it was the case for 1940-1944 period, before Yalta). Therefore, they didn't recognize a cessation of the Estonia's existence. Therefore, Estonia has to be considered existing de jure during WWII. Any uni and multilateral decisions and treaties made post factum (Yalta, etc) are irrelevant in that case, because they have no retroactive effect (Even Lord God is unable to cancel something that had happened in the past).
  In summary, nothing prevents you form putting the Estonian flag into the info box.
  
• As regards to Laar's casualties number. He might be right. However, his results are only estimations, whereas Krivosheev's book is a result of long laborious archival research of the large group of scientists. It is quite reputable source, it is accepted by Wikipedians as a source for Soviet losses similarly to the work of Overmans for the Germans. Therefore, it is necessary to present Laar's conclusions as estimations, in contrast to precise numbers taken from Krivosheev, and, in all cases when the former contradicts to the latter the priority should be given to the latter.
• One more thing must be specified, however. The World War II article tells about Estonian volunteers in the battle of Narva, whereas the battle of Narva article itself tells about the conscripts only. If there were no volunteers the WWII should be fixed, and mentioning of the Estonians should be remover from there (other nationals in Waffen SS are not mentioned there, so we must be consistent).
• Regarding the silence of majority of history books about the battle of Narva. You may be right or wrong. I admit Mart Laar's research is probably a brilliant study that tells a truth about the 1944 events in Baltics. However it is a marginal theory, at least so far, and WP rules require not to pay much attention to it. Don't be offended. The Copernicus' theory was also marginal at the beginning, and, had Wikipedia existed during that time, the WP rules would require to mention his heliocentric theory only briefly (if to mention at all), paying attention to Ptolemy almost exclusively. Therefore, you have to rewrite the article according to what majority sources tell. If Albert Seaton and David Glanz in their monographies on the battles of Leningrad[26][2] devote merely a few pages to that, than it reflects the strategic implication of the battle of Narva according to the contemporary historical view. However, if you (Mart Laar) are right, the situation may change in close future: you are living in the free democratic country, you have a full access to all needed sources, your scientists are free to publish their historical works in reputable peer reviewed journals. If your scientists will be able to do their job properly, you will be able to re-write this article according to newly published sources.
  However, at present moment the article is a logically inconsistent synthesis of published material which advances a position. That contradicts to both WP rules and the rules of human thinking, and, therefore, should be fixed.
  I think, everything is clear now.
  Cheers,
  --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• I see no reason why the Estonian republic insignia cannot be in the info box - Like already pointed out, no matter that the Estonians were fighting for the independence of their country in their own mind, the fact remains, they were fighting under the German flag, not Estonian. Even thogh many of the soldiers were using Estonian insignia on their uniforms , it was officilly forbiden by the Germans , only later when the German situation at the front worsened , it was tolaretaed. In the long run, since everything on WP should be be based on WP:Consensus, it is possible that the use of Estonian insignia can come under consideration. currently I personally don't see the reasons for that since Estonians were fighting under different insignia pointed out avove.

Soviet or American volunteers didn't use national insignia either, so your argument doesn't work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• regards to Laar's casualties number. as long as the content points out according to whom I don't see any problems over there.

The problem is that Laar's numbers are estimations, and that should be stated clearly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• The World War II article tells about Estonian volunteers in the battle of Narva. There have been recorded exactly 500 volunteers + some who were recruited from the Police that was about 1200 in total who joined the German side during WWII volunterly, the rest were conscripts. In case the article says anything else the text needs to be fixed according to the sources that are more speciphic about the facts.

In other words, there were actually no volunteers and small number of conscripts (in the scale of European WWII), so the whole phrase is wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• marginal theory, I'm not that sure what do you have in mind. In case more sources are going to be needed to verify that Laar is not a some kind of Lone Wolf, it's not going to be a problem. There are enough books published in English. the fact that the Soviet sources don't cover the subject so much for obvious reasons don't make it a majority view in any way.--Termer (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean the following: in the Literature section 7 sources are cited, only one of them (Laar's book) supports the section's major idea. Other sources directly contradict it, moreover, they are connected together in a way that constitutes original research, that is prohibited by WP rules. If other sources exist they must be introduced, and the already existing sources must be used properly. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats fair enough, I've added about 6 sources to the article, more to come, meanwhile the ones should be worked into the article as time permits.--Termer (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. As pointed out by Paul Siebert to avoid an impression that Laar might be a some sort fringe theorist, I'm going to split up the references and notes, and list the books that talk about the subject in the references section. And as time permits, the references should be used for confirming the facts in the article in the form of intext notes.--Termer (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

About using the Estonian flag among the belligerents: Numerous SS Divisions were formed of citizens of Soviet Union, openly supporting puppet states like Lokot. I guess we should include Soviet Union among the belligerents now?

I guess, this would lead to confusion, because all those citizens fought against the USSR. More important, all of them were separatists, aimed to support local (like Lokot), or national (like Western Ukraine or Estonia) authorities. Therefore, in cases when the narrative logic requires the separate insignia to be shown, corresponding local or national insignia should be used. For Ukrainian separatists, it is the Ukrainian flag, for Russian liberation army the white-blue-red Russian present day flag, and for the Estonians - either or the Estonian flag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul Siebert I have one more comment on that one. there were Danes and Dutch fighing in the battle of Narva, it doesn't mean that national insignia of Denmark and Netherlands should be used exactly like Estonia in the context. Therefore it would make sense to use the insignia of the Estonian division: --Termer (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

About the number of casualties: Once again, the numbers presented in the present article, are not estimations by Laar, but appropriate numbers from Krivosheev deducted inappropriate numbers from Krivosheev. They are calculations of Krivosheev's numbers, as nothing near the Battle of Narva (lasting from February to April and from July 24th to August 10) can be found in Krivosheev. The Battle of Narva does not exist in Krivosheev. The correct thing to say about the Battle of Narva according to Krivosheev is, that we do not know, how many people died around Narva in 1944. Is that, what you're proposing for the infobox instead of a certain number of casualties – a question mark? Otherwise, just come up with a number from Krivosheev, and add it to the infobox. Erikupoeg (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Walter: [5]

The huge battle lasted for three months, one of the greatest in the world history of war (!), cost Russians 120,000 fallen and for 40,000 Germans... In June 1944, because of the strategical problems elsewhere, 5 German incomplete divisions and the Estonian division stayed at the front of Narva, in total 27,000 men. Russians had 2 armies with 205,000 men. There was a Russian division against each Estonian battalion here; still the enemy was destroyed. In the 109 corps of army 255 men survived.102 Russian tanks were destroyed....On August 10, the command of the red Army stopped the attacks having lost 11 divisions and 2 brigades. By their own data, 12,000 Russians fell in Sinimäed...When the break-through in Sinimäed failed, the main struggle was carried to the south of the Lake Peipus,

According to the Russian data, the conquering of the territory of Estonia cost them 126,000 casualties, in the German data the number is 170,000. On the German side, their own data shows 30,000 dead which is probably underrated, the more realistic number would be 45,000.

--Termer (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

These are truly estimations, although realistic. The three months of one of the greatest in the world battles accounts for only the first half of the campaign. The estimation of 170,000 lost Soviets is according to Krivosheev, realistic for the second half of the Battle of Narva. According to Krivosheev, the liberation of Estonia was carried out in the Narva Operation (July 24th to July 30th), Tallinn Offensive and Moonzund Landing Operation. so the figures are useless to say anything about the losses in Battle of Narva as a whole. Erikupoeg (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tooooooooooooooooooooooo long to digest

I think I commented somewhere in there about the declared neutrality of the Baltic States. That they were invaded by two powers does not make them belligerents for one or the other, that's WP:OR. It's not our role to logically deduce anything else regarding that topic.
   With that out of the way, can someone summarize what, if any points, are still under major contention? It appears there's been quite a lot of that. (!) —PētersV (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The idea advocated by Paul Siebert was that since the Estonians were involved with the battle, Estonia should be added to the infobox as a belligerent. By now it seems we have reached a consensus that in case Estonia is going to be listed in the nfobox, not Estonian state insignia but the insignia of the Estonian division should be used. That's about it other than the subject: the battle of Narva, according to Walter [6] the huge battle... one of the greatest in the world history of war is not that broadly known and requires some more references that have been taken care of and more is on the way.--Termer (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peters that the above sections is too long to digest what the issues are. In regard to whether Estonia should be listed as a "co-belligerent", until I see a source that states this was the case, it is no more than OR.

I understand some comparisons have been made with Finland, but note that unlike Finland, Estonia had no national defense force of its own, so it can't really be considered a "co-belligerent" like Finland. Their military was disbanded by the Soviets when they occupied the country in 1940, and the Germans never permitted its re-establishment, choosing instead to draft Estonians into the Waffen SS. So while Finns could fight in Finnish uniform, Estonians were forced to fight in German uniform. Another point of difference is that Finland fought along side Germany from the beginning, whereas the underground Estonian government resisted German moves to mobilize the Estonian populace (which in any case was illegal under the Geneva convention) until the spring of 1944, when it was apparent that Germany was losing the war and they saw an opportunity to re-establish independence by stopping the Soviets re-entering the country. I guess the Estonian leadership had hoped for a replay of the end of WW1 (which had ended only 26 years earlier), where Germany was defeated before Imperial Russia could re-establish control over the Baltic states, leading to their independence. Martintg (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You slightly misinterpreted my position. I would say the best summary was made by Erikpoeg:"but what Paul's saying, is that if we don't label the Republic of Estonia as a belligerent, the article will have to be re-written and the role of Estonian national aspiration diminished or the significance of the whole campaign dwarfed.".--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd hate to start all over again and I thought we are pass this since as said, it doesn't make any sense to label the Republic of Estonia as a belligerent because it didn't exist de facto since 1940 and de jure it had declared neutrality in the War, already by the government in 1939 and later by the Consulate general in New Yourk. which doesn't mean that the Estonians about 60,000 of them who were fighting there couldn't be called rightfully belligerents under the appropriate insignia. There is nothing more to it really.--Termer (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

PS, or did you just say by You slightly misinterpreted my position that I got it wrong and we haven't reached a consensus regarding this?--Termer (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I think we have reached a consensus. My comment was generally addressed to Martintg who oversimplified the problem. I meant, using reliable sources isn't sufficient for an article to be logically consistent, and, to my opinion, Erikpoeg understands that well.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I think you misunderstood Martintg since he didn't interpret your positions but was explaining his own views. Therefore I misunderstood you thinking that your post was addressed mostly to me because I was the one interpreting you to the latecomers. All seems good and we can proceed with this. The Estonians are already listed in the infobox, if you have any clear visions how it should look different feel free to go ahead and make the adjustments accordingly.--Termer (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your position now. I'm uncomfortable about listing Estonia as a "co-belligerent", particularly since I have not seen any references that claims this. However on the other hand I don't see the logic in diminishing the role of Estonian independence aspirations nor the significance of the campaign should be dwarfed, particularly since it is a published fact that a) Estonian underground government representatives saw the events of 1944 as an opportunity to restore independence and backed the 1944 mobilization call, b) significant numbers of Estonian men heeded that call, c)these men made a significant contribution to the defence of Estonia. To go one step further and assert this is co-belligerence is synthesis of the published facts, unless of course some source can be provided that supports connection. In the absence of such a source, to rely on logic to fill the gaps or make it "consistent" is original research. As it stands, I don't think the section Battle_of_Narva_(1944)#Aims_of_the_Estonian_independence_movement has been given undue weight and needs to be dimished, since it gives important information on why a significant number of Estonians were involved in the battle, nor is it inconsistent with listing only the Soviet Union and Germany as belligerents, since the Soviet Union regarded those Estonians serving in the German army as Soviet citizens. Martintg (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In actuality, the problem I am interested to resolve is not the Battle of Narva, or the Estonian role. It has a relation to WP as whole. I would like to know your opinion about a situation when combining several reliable sources lead to a noncence, and there are no other sources that could help to resolve a situation. Let's look again at the problem:

• There are several sources that claim Estonia was neutral and didn't play any active role in WWII.
• There are several other sources that claim the Estonians played the active and important role in the battle that was more bloody and prolonged than the Battle of Monte Cassino and Second Battle of El Alamein taken together. However, these sources live the question of Estonian neutrality beyond the scope.
  As a result, we must come to conclusion that Estonia, that seems to made a major military contribution, was neutral, whereas Thailand or Argentina were belligerents.
  Are you comfortable with that?
  To Termer. Sorry, I don't try to renew a discussion. I am really interested how to resolve such a situation in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a good question, but for a set of circumstances to be established as a fact, it needs a certain degree of clarity. The political meaning of Estonian war contribution is a train wreck of facts and interpretations. While there's been plenty of research on the contribution of Estonians in the war (and we can't leave the results out of this article), there has been none on the belligerency of Estonian Republic. The Soviet and Russian authors claim, that Estonia was a belligerent of the Soviet Union, the German historians do not count Estonia as a country, the American authors avoid the uncomfortable topic (otherwise they could end up having supported an ex-Nazi belligerent throughout the Cold War), and the position of Estonian authors is based on the declaration of neutrality in September 1944. I agree, the political meaning of Estonian war contribution should be re-evaluated, but not in Wikipedia. The best we can do, is to include the relevant facts on Estonian belligerency/neutrality as a section of Question of neutrality of Republic of Estonia or something like that.

I mean, I would agree to include Estonia as a significant contributor on the Nazi side, but as an occupied country using the insignia of Estonian Division, not the Republic of Estonia.--Erikupoeg (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I understand the difficulty in the apparent contradictions, but in the absence of a source that discusses this aspect we cannot make a conclusion, that would be original research. All we can do is present the published facts that we know of the situation and leave it at that, until some scholar makes some conclusions in the meaning of these facts in a published paper. Martintg (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik, I think that your summary is generally correct, and I have no objection if you modify WWII related Estonian articles according to the concept you proposed. I have a couple comments, however.
First. I wouldn't say statements like "American authors avoid the uncomfortable topic (otherwise they could end up having supported an ex-Nazi belligerent throughout the Cold War)" to make your position stronger. Starting from Pascal's or even Aristotle's times scholar don't avoid any topics whatever uncomfortable they are. American political journalists may avoid such topics (and even write outcrying bullshit), not reputable historians.
Second. I never heard of any Russian claim (forgetting the most chauvinist web sites) of Estonian co-belligerence, they simply refuse to consider Estonia a sepatare state since 1940.
Therefore my advice is: don't use polytical web sites as sources.
All the best,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So would the inclusion of Estonia to Axis Powers#Controversial cases be a part of the solution? Otherwise we can't mention the Estonian contribution in articles like WWII and Eastern Front (World War II), where we have no more space for the Battle of Narva than a short statement. Or what have we agreed upon? It's impossible to include the facts about the Estonian contribution to the battle of Narva to the overview articles so that it will not automaticly contradict the neutrality of the country.--Erikupoeg (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Paul is correct about American scholars, it probably hasn't been covered in depth because of many other reasons, but not because it is uncomfortable. I don't think inclusion of Estonia into Axis Powers#Controversial cases is the answer. Is there a question that needs an answer? Why can't we mention Estonia's contribution? Whether or not the facts of Estonia's contribution contradicts the facts of Estonia's declaration of neutrality is a question that is beyond our competence as wikipedia editors to decide. Why should the facts be suppressed because we amateur historians think there is a contradiction. I say: include the material but don't make any conclusion that Estonia was a co-belligerent or not. Martintg (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. If you write WP articles you have:

• to avoid OR
• to present all POVs if several major POVs exists on some subject
• to be consistent

The latter rule is obvious and no one tells it explicitly. Without that last rule WP would become a garbage. That rule doesn't mean one version cannot contradict another (of cource, they can). However, the version cannot be self-contradictory. You probably noticed that Erikupoeg, Termer and I discuss a single version of the events that took place in Estonia in 1944: we don't argue about basic facts and we live the Soviet POV beyond the scope. You also probably noticed that I don't push any specific POV. Our common concern, therefore, is to make the present version of events self-consistent. This is an absolute requirement and phrases like "question that is beyond our competence as wikipedia editors to decide" are just weasel words in this concrete case. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We have to be careful that in presenting events in a self-consistent manner we do not cross the border of original research. The facts are the facts, to give one more weight and suppress the other because we think it contradicts the other is engaging in synthesis. Did Estonia assert neutrality: yes, in 1939 and in 1944. Did Estonia contribute significant number of soldiers in the Narva battles: yes, in German uniform. Is there a contradiction here: yes. Should we, as amateur historians, decide which to give more weight to neutrality or belligerency: no, because we have no source that discusses this aspect. The best we can do in this case is to present the facts and let the reader decide. Martintg (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however the opposite is also true: We have to be careful that in our attempts not to cross the border of original research we do present events in a self-consistent manner. In other words, if existing sources do not fit into a single self-consistent scheme, then they shouldn't be combined within a single version of events. If combining Western sources, that state Estonia was neutral, with Estonian sources, that state that a large number of Estonians fought during WWII defending their country leads us to a nonsense, then, probably, these sources cannot be used together, but utilized to demonstrate two alternative points of view. If I understood Erikupoeg correct, he is intended to compare different views in a separate section in Axis Powers#Controversial cases. That seems to be the optimal (or less non-optimal) way to resolve such a controversial issue. Sorry Eric if I misinterpret you. As regards to me, I fully agree with that. Probably, it makes sense to mention the Soviet POV also, without giving it too much weight. As regards to insignia, I think the Waffengrenader insignia (plus necessary explanation in a footnote) would be a reasonable compromise. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on If combining Western sources, that state Estonia was neutral, with Estonian sources, that state that a large number of Estonians fought during WWII defending their country.. I'm not that sure from where do you get this? And from where this came from in the first place that there are no books published in the US that would look into this subjcet since I've added already yesterday a number of books into the references section of this article. lets get this straight, there is no contradiction between western sources and Estonian. Please check out Germany's Eastern Front Allies ISBN:9781841761930 pp.14-17 [7] has a pretty detailed overview of the Estonian story including battles at Narva etc. I'm not going to list all the books here again but keep updating the references section in the article.--Termer (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. at the same time no source could claim that Estonian state was anything but neutral, since it didn't exist de facto, the question should be out of the picture and long forgotten by now.--Termer (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't tell all Western sources state Estonia was neutral. I meant that those Western sources that tell about Estonian neutrality, tell almost nothing about Estonian war contribution. Other sources, for instance, the book cited by you, mention Estonians among Germany's Eastern Front Allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I sense some confusion (perhaps not the right word) when writing about history. The whole point is to take the references at hand, the reputably verified facts and events at hand, and to fashion a consistent narrative which tells a story while at the same time respecting its sources. It's not about choosing the proper sources, or being in a quandary when presented with opposing sources. There is always an editorial solution which respects its sources and appropriately reflects their quality and reliability. —PētersV (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If someone has to apologize, obviously I opened the discussion again. In the end, in WWI as in WWII, the inhabitants of the Baltics fought on the side of whomever they were conscripted into or whomever, based on personal decisions (individuals or groups or provisional authorities), they decided could be used to defeat the greater danger--then drive out the lesser danger. To use another example, that the Latvians held out in the Courland Pocket until the end of the war had nothing to do with being a Nazi co-belligerents, it only had to do with the maintenance of Latvian sovereignty against an invading Soviet force certain to take away Latvia's freedom. After all, the Soviets had already demonstrated their intent through prior invasion, occupation, and annexation. Recall also, as the Nazis retreated, the Estonians desperately fought on two fronts to try to regain their freedom, and for a moment the Estonian flag was raised, only to be torn down by the Soviets.

   If we do show Estonia as a participant, I would support it but only under the Estonian flag. As for the question of neutrality, Estonia was a neutral country first invaded by the Soviet Union during WWII. My thoughts at least.

   Lastly, as for who sided with whom, that Latvian Waffen SS were posted as guards at Nuremberg after the war is the acknowledgment and recognition the (non-Soviet) Allies could not make otherwise. —PētersV (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We likely all know expressions along the line of, "If you're not for me, you're against me." The Soviet/Russian position regarding those who fought against the Red Army is the converse syllogism, "If you're against me, you're for the other (Nazi) guy." PētersV (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The best to describe the situation perhaps that has been also used a lot in the context would be The enemy of my enemy is my friend--Termer (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) Per Martintg's latest above and further editorial consideration, the best non-OR/SYNTH way to deal with the belligerents is to leave as is: Estonia a declared neutral country, invaded by the Soviets and Nazis. Separate item, Estonians participating in the battle in German uniforms (not to discount the possibility of Estonian conscripts in the Red Army).
  We already have an "Aims of the Estonian independence movement" section, we can expand that if it's felt the article should provide more historical perspective. "Estonian hopes" might be better, "Estonian independence movement" seems a bit too "organized" and stilted to me. —PētersV (talk

I agree with Vecrumba here. The article seems okay as it stands. It is not clear to me what changes Paul wants, saying he wants to present the facts in a self-consistant view, perhaps he could demonstrate in a sandbox what changes he thinks are needed. Martintg (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one. Already yesterday I pointed out that 'the Estonians' are listed in the infobox as the Belligerents and in case there is anything that should look different about it, an addition of the insignia of the Estonian Division for example, it should be added to the infobox if felt necessary.--Termer (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's start from the lead. The second sentence states: "The German forces included Estonian conscript formations of the SS defending their country against the Soviet re-occupation." Are you comfortable with that oxymoron? The sentence states that the Estonians in German Waffen SS pursued their own goals. Is it possible for conscripts (especially for the German Armed Force conscripts) to pursue their own goals? Of course, not. Therefore either they in actuality weren't able to pursue their goals (similarly to others forcefully mobilized persons), or they were implicit voluntaries, not conscripts. If the former is valid, then a decision of the U.S. High Commission in Germany seems quite reasonable and understandable, but the present sentence should be modified to "The German forces included Estonian conscript formations". Full stop. However, if the latter is valid, Estonian division was de facto an implicit voluntary SS unit, and the sentence should be changed to: "The German forces included Estonian conscripts who didn't try to evade mobilization (obeying the underground government's call) hoping to defend their country against the Soviet re-occupation." By the way, that fact could be a reason for the US commission to reconsider its decision (because they didn't read the Laar's book by that time, and they considered Estonian war contribution negligible).
And so on.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, I oversimplified the issue to make myself more clear. In actuality, situation is more complex and I support the idea of the more detailed analysis of it. The only thing I cannot understand, how can you be satisfied with the article plagued with oxymorons--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

I think the problem here is that you see a contradiction between the Nurmeburg Waffen SS ruling which exempted soldiers "who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter" on one hand, and the notion that not evading conscription implies they were de facto volunteers, and thus the ruling does not apply. I think there is a basic misunderstanding on the meaning of this Nuremburg exemption. All Germans were subject to conscription during the war, but they had a free choice: either serve in the Wermacht or in the Waffen SS. Those who decided to join the Waffen SS instead of the Wermacht are deemed criminals at Nuremburg. In the case of Estonia, there was also conscription, but there was no choice in the matter, the Waffen SS was the only destination, therefore Nuremburg has exempted them from the ruling. Martintg (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Nuremberg trial exempted Estonians and other nationals because it considered them just involuntary tools utilized by the German war machine against their will. Obviously, in this situation everybody can and has to be exempted from any criminal prosecution. In other words, you either pursue no your own goals (and you can be considered not a belligerent), or you (along with many your compatriots) actively pursue your own national goals (others that the Greater Germany goals) and it is hard to explain how your nation had managed to remain neutral during WWII. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If 40,000 Australians joined the French Foreign Legion, would that make the Australian state a co-belligerent with France in some hypothetical war? What if the Australia state declared neutrality but these 40,000 citizens joined up anyway? Belligerency and neutrality have specific meaning under international law and certain conditions must be met. In the case of neutrality, a state can declare its neutrality, but this neutral status requires recognition by belligerent states. Neither the Soviet Union nor Germany recognised Estonia's neutrality and thus the Estonian state could not meet its neutrality obligations because it was occupied. Belligerent status applies when sovereign nations are at war or in the case of a civil war the established government treats the insurgent force as if it were a sovereign power. Estonia was not able to assert its sovereignty, it was occupied, nor did the Soviet Union or Germany recognise Estonia's underground as a sovereign power. Martintg (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please guys, why exactly is this question still comping up? It was 2 days ago when Paul Siebert agreed with the principle that the state of Estonia can't be labeled as a co-belligerent, which doesn't mean the Estonians can't be exactly like the hypothetical 40,000 Australians joined the French Foreign Legion. So why don't you guys let it go since a consensus on the question was achieved about 48 hours ago.--Termer (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To be absolutely factually correct what Martintg just said would apply only to the members of the Estonian division. Not to the members of the Estonian volunteer units within Waffen SS, there were not that many but they were there.--Termer (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer having any article on WP free from all kinds of political commentaries and speculative statements and have the facts speak for themselves. The sentence you cited needs to be clearly rephrased. For WP purposes such a claim would only work if the text said "according to Laar" or whomever the "conscripts did think this or that".--Termer (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some citations from Christopher, Ailsby (2004). Hitler's Renegades: Foreign Nationals in the Service of the Third Reich. Brassey. pp. pp. 139-149. ISBN 9781574888386. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

the Latvians and Estonians provided the Waffen-SS with excellent divisions which fought well in defence of their homelands...though many of the recruits believed they were fighting to liberate their homelands from the Soviets and restore national sovereignty. In reality they were just tools to further Nazi aims...The (Estonian) SS division fought in the 6 month battle at Narva, which also involved many other foreign volunteer units...The Estonians, being highly motivated and well trained and equipped, put up a spirited defence and inflicted heavy casualties on the Soviets...Between 14 and 16 February, one of its battalions under Harald Riipalu defeated large Russian forces which had crossed lake Lammijärv near Meerpalu...on 24 february the battalion of Rudolf Bruus destroyed the bridgehead of Riikula...the battalion of Ervin Meri liquidated the bigger bridgehead of Vaatsa-Siivertsi-Vepskula...by June, the Estonian division was still in the line at Narva...the divisin was still caoable of winning local victories, such as stopping the Soviet attack on Auvere, and the division helped to cover the German retreat from Narva in September...In total it is estimated that there were 100,000 Estonians in various units fighting for Germany in the autumn of 1944.

--Termer (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain me how the quotation provided by you contradicts with my statements? I would say, it fully supports them. 4 to 6% of Estonian population fought against the USSR, fought fiercely and bitterly (just for comparison, about 8% Americans served in Army during WWII, only part of them participated in real hostilities)... and their country remained neutral. Like Sweden. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never suggested that the quotations contradict with your statements, in fact I've agreed with your comments [8] and I've edited the article accordingly: [9] --Termer (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
PS. comment on 4 to 6% of Estonian population fought against the USSR, according to the source there were up to 100,000 Estonians fighting in German uniform. Since the total population of Estonia was around 1,000,000 that would make it about 10% of the population, in other words almost every fit to fight Estonian male at the time.--Termer (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For my estimations I used a size of Estonian population of 1.5 million, and I tried (maybe too tried) to avoid exaggeretion, but, anyway, according to our estimations Estonian involvement into the war (per capita) was about the same as that of America.
I looked at your edits and I agree.
Some more comments. Some headings are ambigous.
For instance "1.2 Oranienbaum Offensive and retreat to Narva". Who was in offensive and who retreated? Had this article been a history book for Estonian student that would create no problems. However, this is the International WP article. Other examples are: "Retreat to Courland", "Fleing to the West".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

completely agree with your latest notes and the things need to be clarified ASAP. Now there is an important thing that needs to be spelled out regarding "Retreat to Courland" and "Fleeing to the West". The article kind of leaves an impression that the Estonians fighting in the German units retreated to Courland and later to Germany. There is also a cap of logic in this one, if that was the case, Estonia would have run emty from the male population. The reality was, (now, it can be considered WP:OR until not confirmed by a published source) when the Soviets broke throgh from the south instead at the Battle of Emajõgi, the troops at Tannenberg Line retreated and the majority of the Estonians simply went home, burned their uniforms and put on civilian cloths + the minority continued fighting as Forest Brothers, some retreated to Courland, some all the way to Germany etc., some made it across the Baltic Sea to Sweden.
Regarding Estonian population of 1.5 million, that was the high point of Estonian population during the Soviet era when the Soviet time immigrants constituted about 40% of the population.--Termer (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with Paul's latest suggestions as well as Termer's too. I read this some where, I'll get the citation later today, that the break through at Emajõgi caused the Germans to decide to withdraw from Tannenberg (and from ultimately Estonia), with the Estonian division tasked with covering the German retreat in a fighting withdrawal. The withdrawal was via Saaremaa and the Sõrve Peninsula, not Courland. I am not sure at what point in time, but the Germans gave the Estonian soldiers the choice to remain in Estonia or flee to the west with the Germans. I believe the majority of the conscripts remained in Estonia, while a core of professional soldiers, like Alfons Rebane opted to go west with the Germans. Martintg (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath section

Is it really necessary to have identical "Aftermath" sections in Battle of Narva (1944), Battle for Narva Bridgehead and Battle of Tannenberg Line? I think it is enough to have it in Battle of Narva (1944), since it is the main article and Battle for Narva Bridgehead and Battle of Tannenberg Line are sub articles. Martintg (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree--Termer (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree--Erikupoeg (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree--PētersV (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• In cases such as these one might put in headings to the other battle and aftermath with simply a link to the article/section for easier navigation and in case a reader came in at one of the detailed articles.

In the discussion of the Courland Pocket, what is meant by: "but were able to focus on operations on its northern flank that were now aiming at East Prussia"? Should this read "southern flank" as Courland is to the north of East Prussia? 124.190.182.209 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

'"Battle of Narva"-"Battle for Narva Bridgehead"-"Battle of the Tannenberg Line"

Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the battles have been broken down in such an order on WP? Is there anybody out there who has divided "Battle of Narva" into "Battle for Narva Bridgehead" and the "Battle of the Tannenberg Line". It might be just me but it seems there were 2 battles, the Battle of Narva=Battle for Narva Bridgehead that was followed by the Battle of the Tannenberg Line. If this is the case the Battle for Narva Bridgehead should be simply merged into thisone over here. Please comment and let me know if I got it all wrong.--Termer (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have one article instead the three, as the battles had virtually the same armies, fighting for the same purpose in practically the same location, with the same outcome. Separating them like seems to be derived from Estonian. where they have separate names. The Battle for Narva Bridgehead is identified as Lahingud Narva pärast and Battle of Tannenberg Line is Sinimägede lahingud. That's because from the Estonian POV the locations - Narva and Sinimäed Hills - are different, but certainly not from worldwide point of view, as they are 14 km apart. I'm not sure about how important the defense lines are, as Narva river was part of the Panther-Wotan Line devised by Hitler, whereas Tannenberg was schemed by Friessner. So the three articles do make some sense, but they will work better as one. So my suggestion is to merge them. Erikupoeg (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, different stages of the battle Narva-Tannenberg line can be dealt with appropriate chapters in this article. I'll hang up the merge templates. --Termer (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The only problem in merging them is length, and having a number of sub articles is a legitimate way to manage length. The idea was to have a main article that discusses the background, politics, war aims, interpretations, etc, etc, with a number of sub articles describing the actual battles themselves. Martintg (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

well, at the moment it doesn't look like there is anything that different really in any of those articles so the length is definitely not going to be additive but about the same as any of the 3 separate articles. And at least keeping the Battle of Narva (1944) and Battle for Narva Bridgehead separately doesn't make any sense to me.--Termer (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you say "doesn't look like there is anything that different really in any of those articles", just look at the table of contents for each article, they look very different to me. Martintg (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Introductions basically are the same and can be merged without any problems, Formations and Units involved are the same, Casualties can be merged etc. But you have a point there -Battle for Narva Bridgehead has much more detail description of the actual battles. so lets see what others say--Termer (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The main point for keeping them as three is the length. In near future, I was going to add details to the Battle of Tannenberg Line, so the length will continue to be an issue. At the same time, how important the size actually is? Most of the GA and FA are over 80K and we certainly have the amount of significant facts to need that. At the same time, I strongly propose, that all of the articles should be readable without clicking the links. The current structure is confusing for the reader, as when you first get to read the Battle of Narva (1944), you see all the backround and aftermath while the battles appear as neglectable. Reading the current version of the Battle for Narva Bridgehead is all battle, no background nor aftermath. What I suggest is, if for the sake of digestibility we keep the three current, the Battle of Narva (1944) needs an extensive summary of the battle descriptions in the Battle for Narva Bridgehead and the Battle of Tannenberg Line, while the latter two articles need summaries of the Background and Aftermath sections of the Battle of Narva (1944).--Erikupoeg (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if kept separately, this article here needs to be broken down into appropriate sections more clearly that would make it self explanatory how the spin-offs Battle for Narva Bridgehead and Battle of Tannenberg Line are related to the root article Battle of Narva (1944).--Termer (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether a battle that lasted 6 months can be described adequately in one single article. Perhaps when the Battle of Tannenberg Line is expanded we will have a better idea of the overall size. Certainly the there needs to be better linking between the articles, and the main article needs to have a brief summary description of the battles. In fact, if Battle of Narva (1944) is renamed to Combat in Estonia (1944), we could also reference other battles, such as Battle of Emajõgi and also the Battle of Sõrve Peninsula. Does this idea make sense? Martintg (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Combat in Estonia in 1944 is a chapter in the Estonian International Commission report, the big book published in 2006. Few chapters of it are available online: [10]. And yes, everything you said makes sense. --Termer (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That will not be a final solution, because the battles in Estonia are closely linked to the later battles in Latvia and Lithuania. What we need is Combat in Baltic States, 1944--Erikupoeg (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Globalize

These three articles suffer from the same problem, so I'm tagging them all: Written from an Estonian (and occasionally German) point of view - the whole battle is described as a string of German/Estonian victories with the Soviet side getting only the criticism. The two "sub-battles" linked from here are classified "German tactical victories," meaning that the Soviet forces at Narva must have been defeated and the invincible German armies are probably still there, fighting off one relentless Soviet attack after another to this day. The general trend is visible in the third sentence of this article: instead of stating the actual outcome - Soviet advance beyond the river Narva, eventually forcing Group Army North into a pocket and preventing it from being a major influence on the outcome of the war, Soviet capture of the town of Narva, etc (all of this is not mentioned at all in the lead!) and then point out that the Soviets planned to succeed much faster and with less casualties - it only mentions the German achievement of significantly delaying the Soviet advance.

There is a number of additional problems:

• the heavy overuse of Mart Laar's book for the more contentious claims, and especially presenting his analysis as fact.
• lack of description of ANY military engagements AT ALL (!) that were conducted during the campaign. Even the capture of Narva is mysteriously omitted (it looks like the article is committing the same error it blames the Soviet side for: presenting German operational results as goals) - that "minor" event simply marks the successful (!!!) conclusion of one battle and the start of the next one;
• The Casualties section is messed up: I was unable to verify the Soviet losses in the battle attributed to Krivosheev - most of the numbers are simply not there! Plus, the article seems to confuse the terms "irrecoverable losses" (used by Krivosheev) with "killed in action," substituting latter for the former everywhere. Plus, there's the odd instance of 100000 Soviet soldiers killed in the battle out of the total 14102 killed in 1944. Both numbers are attributed to Krivosheev and not present in his book (source 24).
• The whole glorification of the "Freedom fighters with outstanding services" should be moved out to the article dedicated to that.
• The section Literature is the crowning achievement of it all - while it has nothing to do with the actual battle, it succinctly summarizes the WP:AFD rationale for all three articles - no significant mention in serious Western sources. The same section is present in all of them, too. --Illythr (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, none of this makes much sense since:

• Mart Laar is the historian who has studied the subject the most.
• All military engagements have been laid out in detail under sub-articles, if nessesary the article here could give a brief overview.
• In case you find any facts in the article being not in sync with any given sources, you should fix the problem.
• The whole glorification of the "Freedom fighters with outstanding services" should be better sourced, in case you are aware of any alternative POV-s on the subject , you should add it as an alternative view to the section.
• The most prominent Western source published on the subject and used as a ref for the articles would be by Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (2006). Estonia, 1940-1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. ISBN 9789949130405. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) and there are other "western sources" cited under references section.

The bottom line of this, since it's you who sees the problem, you should feel free to go ahead and fix anything according to your concerns. In case the articles don't get any major input from you within reasonable amount of time, lets say 2 weeks or so, the tags are going to be simply removed. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• That an Estonian author has extensively studied a military campaign that had occurred on the territory of modern Estonia and has come up with an Estonian point of view is perfectly normal and fine. The problem arises when his analysis is presented as fact, as opposed to his personal research. When dealing with works by Soviet historians, we usually provide proper attribution and tend to use their research when presenting the Soviet POV anyway.
• The article called "Battle of..." should give at least a brief overview of the actual battle, yes.
• "The whole glorification" does not belong into the article at all - you missed the point there. Perhaps a brief mention is in order, but the whole editorializing has no place here.
• Indeed, the "most prominent Western sources" are Estonian ones, thus the appropriate tag. The article itself bemoans the fact that serious Western historians (including those dedicated to "refuting Soviet propaganda") did not consider these events significant. Therefore, as long as the battle is presented from the Estonian point of view, the tag must remain. I'll see what I can do to moderate the POV here, but the problem of the lack of non-Estonian sources that mention the events here to any degree of prominence remains. --Illythr (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Illythr. You, probably, noticed that during the previous discussion I have already risen most of these questions. Some of the arguments of the article's editors look convincing. On other hand, they accepted some of my arguments. For instance, as I understand, the Laar's book will be complemented with appropriate Western sources. Taking into account that the article is currently being edited extensively I would propose to wait a little bit before doing any final conclusion.

I see no problem with the article "written from an Estonian (and occasionally German) point of view", because most Eastern Front articles are written from the Soviet/Russian point of view (probably, because the editors from Germany avoid dealing with that painful theme). Therefore, a reasonable level of the POV from the opposite side would be useful provided that the fact are presented in more or less balanced way.

Regarding the losses, the way Laar obtained the losses from the Krivosheev's book is described by Ericpoeg. I don't think this approach to be absolutely valid for the following reason. In exact science (physics, chemistry) there is a term "garbage collector". Imagine you have some experimental parameters, for instance, A, B, C, that sum up to give D. If you obtain A, B and D experimentally, you always do that with some level of uncertainty. However, if you obtain A and B in more precise way then D, then the operation C=D-A-B will produce a C value that will contain most experimental errors of all your measurements. In that sense the numbers produced by Laar are such a garbage collector. Therefore, it should be explicitly stated that the Laar's data are just an estimation of the Soviet losses during the period not covered by Krivosheev, and these numbers should be given in parallel with Krivosheev, not instead of them.
In addition, doesn't it look strange that the German/Soviet losses ratio is quite unusual for that period of the war (taking into account dramatically increased Soviet military skills and more than convincing technical superiority)?

Going back to Laar, although I believe the western sources do exist that share his vision of Estonian military history (and I believe they will be introduced soon into the article), it is not acceptable when the whole paragraph (Literature) is devoted to the critique of reputable author's books (Glantz, Krivosheev, Erickson, Carrell, etc) based on (the sole) much less known book of Laar. I expected that to be fixed, but I see no appreciable changes so far.

To summarize, the article in the present form deserves this tag, although, I believe, the situation can be (and is being) fixed via joint efforts of all the editors. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Yes, I noticed your discussions here, but they mainly appear to handle a somewhat different topic - the role of Estonia in the battle. My current concern is more with the presentation of information here, which is remarkably POV in the sense that they present the Axis armies scoring victory after victory, slaughtering the Red Hordes en masse and then... suddenly leaving. This is probably a broader problem, highlighted here - you can see that most operations in the Wehrmacht POV part were victories as well, making their constant retreat and eventual capitulation seem rather odd (Soviet propaganda?). Specifically, the two sub-battles of this one are both marked as German victories, even though they resulted in Soviet advances and capture of Narva. In this sense, the Battle for Berlin might be classified a German victory too, because the city was taken not before the 1st of May as Stalin wanted. However, I do not insist that this articles be totally rewritten - they represent a valid POV. It's just that they should be clearly marked as such - preferably in the text, but failing that - by a tag.

On losses - the problem is that Krivosheev's source is used here to support Lars' estimations, which it doesn't. Moreover, even the numbers directly attributed to Krivosheev are not there (maybe a technical error?).

On the Literature section - it's not much of a critique, really. Perfectly okay for someone to present their rationale of writing a book on the issue, complaining about nobody else caring about the subject and using the moment to bash own opponents a little. Just what is it doing in an encyclopedia article?

To summarize - I agree with you that using German POV for an engagement from a German classification is perfectly fine. I object only to the serious lack of balance present here (the string of German victories makes the result of the whole battle, "Soviet operational success," look like partisan Soviet propaganda that had somehow crept through into what was clearly a stunning German/Estonian performance). --Illythr (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To Termer. Unfortunately, I can't read Estonian, so I cannot verify if the Laar's book really contains a statement:"To deny this, the Soviet historians do not count the losses in the battles of Narva separately, but as part of the the losses in Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive, and have left the losses from March 2nd to July 23rd and from July 31st to September 13th 1944 entirely out of the official count of human losses". If that is true (I mean, if his book really states that), it doesn't add a credibility to his conclusions (and to his book as whole), because accusation of a reputable researcher in juggling with facts is a serious violation of a scientific ethics. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be careful in discussing sources to separate out the discussion of what they may include or omit from intent on the part of the author. Nor should we describe the characterizing of sources believed in error as accusations. In a rather heated debate here on WP I actually wound up contacting an author to inform them of (and verify) a mistake in their book (this was concerning a basic historical fact regarding Romania).

   It's a sad truth that in particular with respect to the Baltics, their history and battles have been subjects of tremendous amounts of research and authorship in their native languages but have languished severely where western sources and authorship is concerned. There are only a handful of non-Baltic authors and journalists throughout the 20th century and now 21st who have spent the decades required to steep themselves in Baltic history to gain true informed perspective--and they all learned the native Baltic languages to conduct their research to achieve their expertise.

   Finally, I understand Paul's concerns about an "entire paragraph"--that is fine in the abstract, but when dealing with which is the most authoritative source, giving equal time to all accounts (or searching for more "western" accounts) more often than not does not achieve NPOV, it achieves a quagmire of conflicting facts and hearsay. If there is no reason to distrust Laar's accounting of the facts, let's not rush to give lesser sources equal time. —PētersV (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, on casualties, I personally believe Soviet "superiority" is a figment of propaganda. The Red Army suffered massively disproprortionate casualties trying to retake the Baltics. The Courland pocket, which held out to the end of the war, cost them nearly 400,000 dead or wounded. PētersV (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So I have to observe... I have to find the quote by a Red Army veteran living out his retirement in Riga vetching about the ungrateful Latvians et al. for Stalin saving them from Hitler and the insults to the 1,500,000 that died to do that. What really happened? The senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Red Army because Stalin couldn't leave the Baltics be.

   I would posit that the latter Baltic account is a far more accurate, far less "POV" accounting of history. —PētersV (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We have already discussed the "problem" of the Stavka deciding not to leave an entire functioning Army Group behind own lines on what it perceived to be home territory. Let's focus on the presentation problems here and leave the musings over who did the right thing somewhere over there. --Illythr (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Illythr. First of all, the most prominent western source Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity has no Estonian members. The second I'll see what I can do to moderate the POV here. It's not up to you to moderate anybody's POV-s, the only thing you can do, in case you're aware of an alternative POV-s according to any WP:RS, you should add these to the article.--Termer (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Paul Siebert: Unfortunately, I can't read Estonian, so I cannot verify if the Laar's book... I have no idea why would you like to read a language you don't understand instead of reading the books that are published in English:

• Laar, Mart (2005). Estonia in World War II. ISBN 9789949411931. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Laar, Mart (2005). The Forgotten War. ISBN 9949411750. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Laar, Mart (1992). War in the Woods. ISBN 0929590082. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Uh, that "...is an Estonian commission established by President Lennart Meri" and "This Estonia-related article is a stub..." in that article must be my eyes deceiving me, then.

As for insisting that this article should defy the fundamental Wikimedia principle, WP:NPOV, I would like to ask you to reconsider. I don't know if the POV that it represents here is significant (the article itself complains that it isn't), but I will take your word for it that it is (it does cover a rather large period of the war). Since most Western historians don't share or ignore this point of view (again, per this very article), it needs to be represented fairly, and as far as possible without bias.

Thanks for the ISBN's, but can you please provide the one that Paul had actually wanted to read: "Sinimäed Hills 1944: Battles of World War II in Northeast Estonia" (source 12)? The phrase "in Estonian" was probably the one that gave Paul an idea that he can't read it. If an English translation is available, we can replace the reference here as well. Hope that helps to clear your confusion. --Illythr (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you got that part right, the commission was established by President Lennart Meri in order to get an international evaluation to this period of Estonian history. That's why there are no Estonian members. Please familiarize yourself with the subject, it would make it easier for you to contribute productively to this article. thanks!--Termer (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. Everything needed is covered in those books that have been published in English. In case anything needs to be double verified, please ask the editor who has added the text into the article to provide exact Estonian citation.. And I'm sure there are enough people around at Wikiproject Estonia who are willing to help out with translations in case any serious concerns might arise.--Termer (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the concept of a government hiring foreign officials to confirm its own claims, thanks. Fortunately, this one is quite open about its affiliations and goals ("shining the bright light of truth," to quote its founder). Now that we have established that it's an official Estonian organization, I think we can close the issue of it being not an official Estonian source, or rather, not supporting the position of the government that had established it. As for the book - yes, it would be nice if someone would cite the phrase "To deny this, the Soviet historians do not count the losses in the battles of Narva separately, but as part of the the losses in Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive, and have left the losses from March 2nd to July 23rd and from July 31st to September 13th 1944 entirely out of the official count of human losses" from one of his books (did he add it to more than one?). It would help determine if the POV the sentence pushes belongs to the author or the editor who added it. --Illythr (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I get it right, you just accused people like Arseny Roginsky the head of a Russian human-rights organization Memorial participating in GONGO projects? Regarding the citations you provided than it should be pretty straight forward what to do about it: Either it should say clearely "who says so-according to" or as a leaning commentary and/or a personal opinion should be simply removed. Why to make such a big deal out of it, I have no idea.--Termer (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, It does not try to hide its affiliations (like a GONGO would), fortunately. You just seemed to imply that its non-Estonian composition provides proof of non-affiliation with its founder state, counterexamples of which abound. As for attributing citations, let's see if anyone else will object to that. Still, I'd rather prefer the article's main developers would do it themselves, at least in future edits. --Illythr (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you go out there and ask for a third opinion at WP:RfC and you have 7 guys telling you their take on the issues, it's not going to be your opinion but theirs. That's exactly the case with the "Estonian Commision" to get a third opinion so that history's "white spots" could be looked at from a more neutral point of view. The fact that the views perhaps do not match with the Soviet pre-perestroika and the current Kremlin's official interpretations is perhaps noteworthy, but that's all. The result of the commission's work is most likely the most comprehensive study on the subject, a book about 1300 pages thick. Anyway, this is not even an issue since the commisions report doesn't include anything like you've cited above.--Termer (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what if get to pick those 7 guys myself? Will you then take their opinion at face value, especially if they repeat everything I've been saying before, just with more detail?

Anyhow, you're right, that particular source doesn't support anything spurious and mostly needs some minor reformulation (Soviet POWs "safely evacuated" sounds odd, "thousands of boats sunk" - how many did they have anyway?). --Illythr (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Termer, the major Illythr's question was quite clear: did Laar in his book [12] accuse Krivosheev in deliberate misinterpretation or concealing the facts or numbers, or this can be attributed to the article's editor? If the first is true, then I would prefer to believe Krivosheev (like majority Wikipedians), and would consider Laar non trustworthy author. If (as I expect) thai is just an unintentional misinterpretation made by the article's editor, it should be fixed quickly, and let's forget about that. You can read Estonian, could you please tell us about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's difficult for me to tell what exactly are you referring to. Please give me the specific phrase from the article and the intext citation from where it comes from and I can check it out what's up with this. Currently Krivosheev is mentioned only once in the article at the references section and it's used as the ref for Soviet casualties. Perhaps the thing you're talking about has been removed? So please be more speciphic in orer for me to be able to comment it. --Termer (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the citation, you are looking for from Laar (2008). "Sinimäed 1944": "Viimasel ajal võib II maailmasõjaga tegelevate Vene ajaloolaste töödes täheldada mitut uut tendentsi. Osa uurijaid üritab Narva all ja Sinimägedes toimunud lahingu tähendust vähendada. Sinimägedes kantud kaotused on paljudele ilmselt tänapäevalgi sedavõrd valus teema, et see on välja jäetud Punaarmee II maailmasõjas kantud kaotuste ülevaatest, kus muidu leiavad kajastamist küllaltki väikese ulatusega operatsioonid," translating roughly as: "During the last period, several new tendencies can be observed in the works of the Russian historians. Part of the researchers attempt to reduce the significance of the battles around Narva and the Sinimäed Hills. The casualties suffered in the battles of Narva appear as a painful enough topic to be left out of the overview of the casualties of the Red Army in II World War, where the content otherwise covers operations of rather small extent." Earlier in his book, Laar hints, that in the context of the battles of Narva:"It is not easy for the defeated of World War II to write books about their victories, while the victors of the war do not wish to discuss their defeats." He also points out, that the Western researchers are restricted from entering the files in the archives of the Soviet Armed Forces, therefore it is not possible for him to check the validity of his estimations. He does not imply a plot between the Western and Russian authors, rather a common bias in describing the events of 1944 as a series of carefree victories for the Allies.--Erikupoeg (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Illythr, you seem concerned about the POV of the article. I suggest you read something on the battle before tagging and deleting an article on the topic. It's a bit sad to watch you winding yourself up to pound the article without using any facts or figures from what actually happened in Narva, nor sourced views about the significance of the campaign. There are plenty of references listed below the article for you. Perhaps you can find better use for all that energy you've got! Looking forward to your amendments.--Erikupoeg (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The POV of the article is visible in the lead right away - there's no mention of the overall front movement as a result of the battle or the capture of Narva or basically anything justifyng the "Soviet operational success" note in the infobox. On the contrary, only German achievements are provided. As for deleting the article - you must be confusing me with someone else. Far from deleting the article, I don't even insist on a total rewrite - merely proper attribution of the analysis presented here, as well as at least a semblance of balance. So far, there's been visible progress. I'm looking forward to continuing it and removing the tag once either a basic balance is restored or the analysis presented in the article is duly attributed. --Illythr (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to deleting the Literature section. --Erikupoeg (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

To PētersV. Going back to figments of propaganda I would like to point out that the story about hordes of Soviet barbarians who pressed brave Baltic varriors despite immense losses may also be a propaganda. According to western (including German) sources (Rűdiger Overmans, Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1, Richard Overy The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia (2004), ISBN 0-7139-9309-X) the Eastern Front Axis losses amounted 5,178,000 KIA+ 4,428,000 WIA/MIA. According to Russian sources (Vadim Erlikman, Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke: spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1; Mark Axworthy, Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995, p. 216. ISBN 1-85409-267-7), who is less conservative than Krivosheev (the latter can be considered a lower estimate), the Soviet losses were 10,651,000 KIA/MIA + 6,651,000 WIA, so the overal Axis/Soviet ratio is even less than 1 to 2. Based on that, Laar's numbers look somewhat unusual and some explanations are needed to show what concrete extraorditary factor led to such a ratio (~1 to 10). --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the scale of the operation is 1) set very wide (February-September 1944) 2) set to end just before the German forces started to take a pounding from the Baltic Offensive and 3) deduces the casualties from overall losses, i.e. speculates that "if they didn't die someplace else, they must have died here." With this "garbage collecting" tactic, as you described it (the "garbage" in question being the deaths of human beings, btw) such a high estimate seems plausible. --Illythr (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't explain the 1:10 losses ratio.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To Termer (Regarding the ref 12.) Anyway, I strongly recommend to rewrite the Literature section, because the manner it has been written in simply compromises Laar as a historian. It looks like, according to Laar, a plot of Western and Soviet/Russian historians exists that is aimed to understate Estonian war achievements during WWII ("Although most reputable WWII historian pay a little attention to the Battle of Narva, in reality it was much more important." "Although the Krivosheev's book is considered to be generally valid, he deliberately excluded some numbers to conceal the scale of hostilities near Narva"). Sorry for some exaggerations, but I had to do that to make myself clear. (By the way, I am convinced the Laar's books are written in more modest manner)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In case it reads anywhere "that a plot of Western and Soviet/Russian historians exists", it would be simply ridiculous. Since there are western historians and books published in English also already added to those articles which look into the subject and do not ignore it at all. I think the article should avoid any kind of leaning commentaries an it should let the solid facts only speak for themselves. In case you see or spot anything like that you already cited, it should be simply removed--Termer (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevant section in Laar (2008). "Sinimäed 1944" goes like this: "Maailma jaoks on Sinimägede lahingud peaaegu tundmatud. II maailmasõja kaotajatel pole kerge oma võitudest raamatuid kirjutada, võitjad ei taha aga kaotustest rääkida. Nii võimegi lahti lüüa ükskõik millise tavalise uurimuse Teisest Maailmasõjast ning avastada, et Narva all 1944. aastal peetud lahingutest on selles minimaalselt kirjutatud," translating roughly as: "The Battles around Narva are almost unknown to the World. It is not easy for the defeated of the II World War to write books about their victories, while the victors do not wish to discuss their defeats." The detailed review follows, presented in the Literature section. Laar does not imply to a conspiracy, rather to a lack of coverage. You are welcome to include other reviews, or Western sources, Laar is missing. Otherwise, what you are stating, remains an unbased accusation, while the conclusions of Laar's review stand as a fact.--Erikupoeg (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Literature

To Termer. Let's look at the "Literature" section again.

The battles of Narva are almost unknown to the world. [laar] It is hard for the defeated of World War II to write books about their victories, while the victors prefer to avoid discussion about their defeats. Books on World War II barely mention the battles of Narva. The fact, that the battles were just one out of ten directions of attack on the Eastern Front in 1944, hardly explains the overall disregard of the death of more than a hundred thousand men.[laar] Albert Seaton (1977. "The Russo-German War") and David M. Glantz (2002. "The Battle for Leningrad: 1941-1944") in their monographies on the battles of Leningrad devote merely a few pages to the battles of Narva.[laar] The elsewhere detailed Paul Carrell (1966. "Scorched Earth: The Russo-German War") has almost entirely left the campaign of Narva out of his discussion.<[laar] John Erickson in his classic overview on Germany in World War II (1988. "The Road to Berlin: Continuing the History of Stalin's War with Germany") writes just slightly more on the battles.[laar] The capital six-volume German compilation (W. Schumann & O. Gröhler (1981-1985). "Deutchland im zweiten Weltkrieg" allows minimal space for the battles of Narva.[laar]

(My comments. I think it is clear from this paragraphs that: a. Reputable Western sources pay not much attention to the Battle of Narva. b According to Laar, the battle of Narva was an extraordinary event, and that fact lead to deliberate attempt of Soviet/Russian histoeians to conceal its scale and importance (in contrast to other devastaning battles, like Battle of Kiev or Operation "Mars"). c German historian pay also a little attention to that battle (the reason is quite unclear. If this battle was an overwelming success of Germans/Estonians, why don't German authors understate it?). In other words, this paragraph represents Laar as a proponent of a kind of conspiracy theory. I believe, in reality Laar is much more reasonabe author.)

The international composition of the SS troops has fascinated several authors who have written very focused (but one-sided) works about the battle. The unusual spectacle of German troops resisting a Soviet advance for months on as late as 1944 has proven a compelling topic for those fascinated by the Wehrmacht, and particularly, the SS. Generally, the Soviet and Russian authors try to diminish the importance of the battles of Narva. It is a tradition for the Soviet historians to present the actual outcomes of the battles as the desired goals of the Soviet leadership.[Beshanov's "Ten Stalin's shocks"] In the beginning of 1944, the Soviet aim was not merely liberating Leningrad from the blockade and seizing Narva, but the destruction of the entire Army Group North, the capture of the Baltic States and the invasion of East-Prussia.[David Glantz][Beshanov's "Ten Stalin's shocks"] As the outcomes were not achieved, the Soviet authors claim, that the intentions were limited from the very start of the campaign. [Beshanov's "Ten Stalin's shocks"] To deny this, the Soviet historians do not count the losses in the battles of Narva separately, but as part of the the losses in Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive, and have left the losses from March 2nd to July 23rd and from July 31st to September 13th 1944 entirely out of the [Krivosheev] by the Headquarters of the Soviet Armed Forces.[laar]

(My comments. Despite a mentioning of "several authors who have written very focused (but one-sided) works about the battle", no references have been provided. Instead of that, the book of Beshanov, a proponent of Suvorov (the fringe theorist whos works were thoroughly debunked by reputable authors (e.g. "The Icebreaker Controversy: Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler?" Author(s): Teddy J. Uldricks Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 626-643 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2697571)) is used to support the main paragraph's point. In addition, this is a book in Russian, there is no English translation and there is no page number in the references provided (the latter is against the rules, btw). In addition, this general conclusion that Beshanov's book allegedly contains relates to the whole Soviet/Russian historiography, and I am always suspicious about those authors who put forward such proposals. And, finally, the last statement (attributed to Laar) directly accuses Krivosheev in juggling with facts.)

I think, no additional comments are needed.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You know I think it's all too boring, who cares if someone thinks that the subject has not got enough attention. the whole Estonia is about 1.000.000 people, that's less than a neighborhood in LA, so it's self explanatory that subjects involving such a small nation never are going to get "enough attention". So all this kind of commentary definitely has no relevance in an article on WP. I'd say anything factual from any WP:RS source would be relevant, all this abstract commentary should go.--Termer (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the whole Greek nation (I mean Plato's time Greece) was far less then the present days population of Tallinn, so even a small nation can have a huge impact on human history. In that sense, if even a half of the article is true, the importance of the Battle of Narva and the Estonian contribution is outstanding. What I propose is to make the article more convincing via removal of logical inconsistencies and irresponsible claims. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Siebert well, if you saying that halting the Soviet advance for an half a year by up to 100.000 Estonians during WWII made a huge impact on human history comparable with the Plato's time Greece? Well, I don't see where you're going with this, what kind of inconsistencies and irresponsible claims exactly? We went through your concerns last week, is there anything else?--Termer (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Termer, you, probably, see an irony where it is absent. I said what I said, namely, that even a small nation may have an impact. The scale and strategic implication of the battle of Narva is comparable to that of the whole Burman campaign, therefore, the contribution of Estonia is comparable to that of India (both of them were the part of empires). As regards to my concerns, I didn't want to push my POV seeing that the article develops in desirable direction. I joined the discussion when I understood that this movement had stopped.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's half a year of the world's most important global conflict! It's not like there's going to be more than one such conflict anyway... Sure the action and its location is somewhat obscure (with the Big Stuff going on elsewhere) and it deals with the German/Estonian take on the battle, but it did happen nonetheless. However, I think what Paul means is that the whole thing is portrayed rather prominently here. So, if the claims made by the article are correct (saved Finland, almost saved Estonia, destroyed the Red Hordes with a 10 to 1 loss ratio etc), they should be cleaned up and NPOVed. --Illythr (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it didn't make much difference in the big picture but at the same time, I'm not getting it what seems to be the problem if an article about the Narva battle talks about the Narva battle rather prominently?--Termer (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Prominent" as if it were a second battle of Stalingrad. This article actually doesn't talk about the battle, BTW, but all sort of other things. --Illythr (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything, you may say, does not make the battles around Narva in 1944 disappear from the history. General Ivan Fedyuninsky and General Felix Steiner agree in their memoirs, that the combat around Narva was more intense than anything they ever saw in their career. Soviet and German battle diaries accompanied by Soviet, German and Estonian memoirs confirm, the battles took place as described in the Battle for Narva Bridgehead and the Battle of Tannenberg Line. These are (mostly double checked) facts. There are a lot of facts missing about the battles from the Soviet side, as access is denied to the Western researchers to the Soviet battle diaries. Only a few of the diaries are at Estonian hands. Only estimations can be made upon the number of casualties on the Soviet side, as the battles are missing from the Krivosheev book and, once again, Western researchers are denied access to the archives of the Soviet Armed Forces.
The significance of these battles is a matter of discussion. Perhaps more Soviet, German, Finnish, American etc. views can be added to the present discussion in the article, which everyone is warmly invited to do. Until that, the currently presented view will remain the only one.--Erikupoeg (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hence the tag. Again, I'm not trying to "delete" the battles, only attribute this "only one view" properly. --Illythr (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The message, the tag delivers, is that the article presents just on of the contesting views, which is false. In fact, this is a synthesis of the Soviet and German battle diaries with the modern American, Estonian, German, and Russian views. Hence the tag sends a wrong message. There is just one contesting view - the Soviet and official Russian one, that the battles never happened. Just like Holocaust denial, the view deserves a paragraph. I tried to address the issue in the Literature section, but apparently failed. Over to somebody "unbiased". Otherwise, just like the Holocaust article does not have a tag of presenting mainly Jewish views for not covering the POV of holocaust deniers, Narva articles shouldn't be tagged as biased. --Erikupoeg (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article consists of German achievements only. That's it. As for denial - please pinpoint where exactly does this article state how far did the frontline move between February-September. What happened to the city of Narva? Why was the whole battle a Soviet operational success?

Okay, I'll try to explain again. Soviet sources, even the most "patriotic," do mention these battles. However, they only limit themselves to saying something like "...broke through to Narva, failed to take the city, troops exhausted, enemy resistance too strong, gained reinforcements in summer, took Narva, then, after bloody battles in August-September, broke through and eventually cleared all of Estonia." What did not exist here, was not the battle, but a Soviet campaign under such a name and scope (except for the 6 day long capture of Narva city). Now take a look at the German retreat to Courland and Aftermath section. They deal with the German-Estonian-Finnish perspective entirely, mentioning Soviet advances only briefly. Hm, from you latest edits, I think you're getting the idea. Looks like progress to me.

PS: I'm not sure if you deleted your post on purpose or accidentally. If the former is true, please say so, much of my own response to it will be unnecessary, then. --Illythr (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the deletion was a mistake.

I agree with the critique about Courland section, it needs some work. About the missing Soviet successes: the battles are described in detail in the sub-articles. The current version of the Battle of Narva (1944) obviously misses the synopsis of battles, which everybody is welcome to contribute to. --Erikupoeg (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of Soviet sources, that describe the battles: the battle diaries of the 2nd Shock Army and the 109th Rifle Division, General Fedyuninsky's diary, L.Lentsman (1977), Евгений Кривошеев (1984) (not the account of Soviet losses), F.I.Paulman (1980), and V. Rodin (October 5th, 2005). They are extensively used in the three articles. I don't see, what's the POV fuzz about? --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You've just reinforced the reason for deletion of the Literature article by directly disproving Lars' claims.

As for sources - the problem is not in the numbers: you can use 200+ Soviet sources to meticulously describe every single Soviet failure in the battle. This won't make the article NPOV at all, especially if you use German sources to describe German successes and at the same time say nothing (or use only German sources) on German failures and Soviet successes. Especially since the operation was an overall Soviet success. --Illythr (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Enough of the implications, give me examples of major facts missing or given undue weight or being false in any of the three articles! You can't place a tag of POV, based on your disbelief. I want to know exactly which Soviet achievements and German failures are missing. And don't go saying: "There have got to be some," again. --Erikupoeg (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I already did this above and below, and you've even fixed some. But here, the rest:

Major

1. Mark the operational scope of the battle and its phases as one defined by the Germans.

   We are currently discussing that. --Erikupoeg (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Explain "Soviet operational success" in the lead.

   Secured a bridgehead in February (check!), captured Narva in July (check!) and forced the German forces to leave by breaking through to Estonia during the Baltic Offensive (check!) Anything you want to add?--Erikupoeg (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

   ...in the lead. Adding №3 to the intro in this short form would suffice. --Illythr (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Incorporate the events of the July 24-30 Narva operation into this article - this is directly relevant to the battle of Narva and it is quite incredible there was not a word about it at all.

   For the tenth time, not only the Narva Operation, but the battles as a whole need a synopsis here. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

   Yes. The Narva operation and the Baltic offensive are the things that make the whole battle a Soviet net gain, despite the delay. This must be present to provide the missing balance. --Illythr (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Indeed, seeing as how the battle of Narva ended (not??? why not? explain!) with the capture of Narva, there's got to be something that turned the constant German victories into a Soviet success. Unfortunately, this deus ex machina is nowhere to be seen in this article (fixing 2 and 3 will probably make 4 go away by itself).

   As discussed below, the scope of the article is not set by a bunch of Germans, but us and it's up to us to change it. You are accusing some editors of placing the scope of the article to present a German victory. So let's change it! --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

   I was always talking about the scope of the battle, as defined in the infoboxes. The articles just follow that scope with some overlaps. The campaign scope is German. Soviet historians present a different one. That the German scope has no holes in it and was thus used as a frame is not a problem, provided we flag it as a German (defensive) campaign which encompasses a number of successfully repulsed Soviet attempts to break through into Estonia and ends just before the Soviets did finally break through.

   Accusations: Have I accused anyone specific of portraying the loss of Narva as a German victory? No. Is the loss of Narva portrayed as a German victory? Yes. --Illythr (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor

1. Use Soviet names for Soviet operations instead of phrases like "huge wave" or "all-out attack."
2. Mark presented Soviet losses as Estonian estimates.

   Now that this has been done, I guess you can go ahead and change the casualties back to "dead," if that is what Laar writes in his book. With proper attribtion, the scholarly quality of the sources is a problem of their respective authors and not Wikipedia editors. --Illythr (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Demonstrate how the number of losses (145,102) was obtained from source 24.

   I can't. Laar claims, it's the total of irrecoverable losses by the Leningrad Front in 1944, without further explanations. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

   But he claims the numbers are Krivosheev's, right? Yet they are not in that book of his [24]. I don't believe Lars would fake the numbers. Maybe he just added all the losses of the front for 1944 together? Basically, the concern here is the verifiability. If we can't verify Lars' claims in Krivosheev's book, we can't use that book as a supporting source for the numbers.

4. Remove anything not directly relevant to the battle from the Modern Controversy section to the general article about the Estonian Legion.

This will not solve the POV problem in its entirety, but will at least moderate the bias enough to remove the Globalize tag. --Illythr (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Man, you're patient. I just wasted the whole section. Next, I think the Casualties section should get the focus, because the of the cited numbers being "not there". Perhaps the editor who added them can point us to their exact places in the (rather voluminous) work by Krivosheev. A simple Ctrl+F search had failed to produced anything for 665827 and 14102. 480000 and 100000 are Lars' estimations and only use Krivosheev's general data (probably). --Illythr (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, look through the discussion above. According to Ericpoeg, these numbers were derived by Laar using Krivosheev's data (I am not patient enough to reproduce this procedure here again). Obviously, you cannot find these numbers in the Krivosheev's book. That is why, my proposals are: show Krivosheev's numbers (with appropriate footnote) and supplement them with Laar's estimations. It is quite normal to present two sets of numbers (look, for instance, at the Battle of Kursk). --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

above, I've also posted already the casualties according to Hannes Walter: [11]--Termer (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are the official takes regarding the casualties according to the Estonian-International History commission:

The Red Army:

...detailed information on Red Army casualties has not been available to researchers. According to Russian researcher Vladimir Rodin, who cites the reports of the armies to the high Command of the Leningrad Front, the Red Army's casualties during February on the Narva Front were 6,033 killed and 7.144 wounded were evacuated.

the Leningrand front casualties from 14 January to 1 March were 56,564 killed or missing in action, and 170,876 wounded; for the Volkov Front, the numbers were 12,011 and 38,289 respectively; for the 2nd Baltic Front 7,942 and 26,810; for the Baltic fleet 169 and 1,292

--Termer (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

in case more sources are needed here are about 22 pages on the subject:

• The Battle of Narva, 1944 by Pat McTaggart ISBN 0306812606
• A whole book 183 pages by Richard Landwehr, Narva 1944 ISBN 0918184029,

--Termer (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the good style requires the German sources to be used for German losses, the Soviet sources for the Soviet losses, etc. The Laar's rationale, as it has been reproduced by Ericpoeg doesn't look convinsing, therefore it should be complemented with other sources. By default, the priority should be given to the Soviet/Russian data. I assume that present days Russian speaking historian are generally as unbiased as their western colleagues do (excluding those who proved the reserse).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no "good style" policy on WP in that respect. The sources have to be WP:RS, that's all. In case multiple perspectives exist, each has to be presented fairly. In case you think anything is presented unfairly in this article, please address the text in the article accordingly. It has to be clear, who says what and how do they differ, that's all.--Termer (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The unwritten consensus does exist, however. By the way, the timing difference can also be accounted for. Look at the Battle of Kursk, for instance. Since German and Soviet dating of the end of the battle differ, two sets of numbers are presented, one according to the German POW (both German and Soviet casualties) and another according to the Soviets. This is a good example of resolving very complicated situation when the will exists to present the events in a neutral manner.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the Narva operation (see ru interwiki) is a 6 day operation with the goal of capturing the city of Narva. There is also an "operational gap" (March-June) during which no operations of a strategic scale were conducted by the Soviet forces. --Illythr (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Krivosheev does not mention casualties in the Battle of Narva (Feb 2 - Sept 19 1944) or anything close to the period. Therefore, we have two choices: 1. To state, that the number of casualties is unknown or 2. To use a sourced estimation. The current version has made Choice 2. Anyone, who will find anything for the period around Narva or Leningrad front in Estonia in Krivosheev or any other source, is welcome to add it to the article.--Erikupoeg (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a problem. Look at the Battle of Kursk. According to the Germans, the operation ended earlier that according to the Soviets. To resolve a problem, two sets of (quite different) numbers are used. I see absolutely no problem in doing something like that here. When the Soviet numbers are unavailable, Estonian estimations can be used (with appropriate footnote) --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a whole other situation on our hands. The battle of Kursk exists in both German and Soviet accounts, whereas in Krivosheev, there is nothing that could remotely be called as the battles in Narva. What Laar did was to adding up the casualties of the Leningrad Front in 1944 and deducting their other operations in the year. I agree, the number may collect some garbage, but considering the length and the nature of the combat, the result is probably the closest we will get until the Russian Government opens up the Soviet archives.--Erikupoeg (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Erik is correct, unlike Kursk, the name "battle of Narva" exists only in German (and Estonian) historiography. The corresponding Soviet campaigns had different time and space scopes. The Soviet "Narva operation" lasted six DAYS, not months.

On losses - that is fair, except the numbers should be presented as Lars' estimations (basically "Estonian estimates"), not presented as fact. Plus the little confusion between "dead" and "irrecoverable." If Krivosheev's research is used for the estimations, then it should be used in a scholarly manner. --Illythr (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern controversy

Could anybody comment what does that mean:"Based on the actions of the Government of Otto Tief, it was demonstrated, that Estonians fought both the communists and nazis..."? Do I understand correct that those Estonians who fought in Red Army are beyond the scope? Who else fought against nazis, and when? (No irony. I am absolutely serious)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Units of Admiral Johan Pitka whose men seized power from Germans in Tallinn on September 21, a day before the Soviets took the city. The article still needs to be written I think. But the report about the event from the British Royal foreign service is already cited somewhere on this talk page. --Termer (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC) PS. Here is the source I mentioned earlier [12]

Do you seriously think that taking a power in the abandoned city can be considered a fight against nazis?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm done with this for now, please put your energy into improving the article according to any WP:RS you can come up with instead of using this talk page for general discussion about the subject. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The city was not abandoned but in German hands on Sept 21. The Government Buildings were taken from the Germans by force. It may have not been a serious capture of power in the Capital, but it rather convincingly shows, what the Estonian troops were fighting for and against.--Erikupoeg (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, they did it not in a parallel but consecutive manner. The sentence it its present form can be understood like the Estonians were illegally conscripted and, using German arm fought against both Stalin and Hitler trying to establish independence. And, simultaneously, managed to be neutral. BTW, do you think that one day uprising to have more significant military impact in the war against Hitler than that of the Estonians in the Red Army?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. First with regard to Tallinn. As Termer and Erikupoeg correctly state, it was not exactly being abandoned by the Germans, who did not leave quietly. To establish Estonian control over Tallinn, Estonian forces had to fight on two fronts simultaneously, against both Nazi and Soviet forces.
   In the wider context, yes the Estonians were conscripted and yes they (from their perspective) fought against the Soviets as the greater evil--who had assaulted the Estonians first. In WWI the Baltics used both sides against each other to gain their freedom, they had hoped to do so again in WWII. What uniform an Estonian, Latvian, or Lithuanian wore had nothing to do with taking sides with either the Nazis or Soviets. Some wore both and were captured, even tortured, by both. It was only about which side presented the better opportunity at the moment for regaining freedom. So, yes, the Baltics were absolutely neutral as their only aim was to maintain their sovereignty over their own soil and their only allegiance was to their own homelands. —PētersV (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Two days after capturing the Government building in Tallinn from the Germans, the Johannes Pitka platoon clashed with the Soviets near Keila.
About Estonian neutrality: The most prominent legal analysis on the issue states, that had the Estonian Government established power in a significant portion of Estonian territory for a significant time, the Republic of Estonia would have had to face the consequences of being an ally of Nazi Germany. As it failed to establish itself factually, the case is closed. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to consider Estonia neutral (let's not renew a tooo long discussion). I also agree that the bitter Estonian resistance to the Red Army does deserve a detailed description. However, to my opinion, representing a couple days skirmish with already retreating German troops (and former co-combatants) as an Estonian fight against Hitler is too much... --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To end the discussion, I propose to modify the second sentence of the Modern controversy section to "Based on the actions of the Government of Otto Tief, it has been claimed , that Estonians fought both the communists and nazis...."--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEASEL and WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTOPINION.--Termer (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The current formulation ("it has been demonstrated") is just as weaselish. To avoid these fuzzy words altogether, the following can be used:

After the re-establishment of the Estonian Republic in 1991, the Government of Estonia took the position, that the actions of Otto Tief's government, and of Estonians within the German Armed Forces were directed against both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht, with the ultimate goal of the independence of Estonia, thus differing in no way from the Finnish role in the conflict.

--Illythr (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

agree with Illythr, the section still needs additional intext citations for verification. I've replaced some of the text that read like a leaning commentary with the facts+ refs that should speak for themselves. The rest of the text needs to be adjusted accordingly.--Termer (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think paras 2 and 3 should be moved to the "Estonia in WW2" or the "Estonian Waffen SS" articles. Then the section can be renamed to something like "perception of the battle in modern Estonia" (since no controversy is explicitly mentioned anyway). --Illythr (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(od) Just to Paul's and "too much" regarding Tallinn, it's fair to characterize it as trying to seize the moment to wrest Tallinn from both the Nazis and Soviets. No more, no less. —PētersV (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think nobody will dispute the current formulation. --Illythr (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with PētersV on seizing a moment. Agree with Illythr on parellelism with the Finns and with his formulation as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Estonian stuff"

OK, Erikupoeg keeps removing fundamental facts from the header, the reasons according to the sources published in English that were included, the question raised why this battle took so long and how come the Soviet advance was suddenly halted for half a year. The books in English that were provided for refs were clear about it. The primary reason for halting the Soviet advance at Narva was the general conscription call in Estonia. If this is not one of the key elements for this article, what is?--Termer (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ericupoeg's edits of the lead - it should contain only the main battle details - what, who, where, result, special. As one major characteristic (special) of this battle is the engagement of Estonian units, this too should be present in the lead, but only as a short summary 1-2 sentences long, just as it is now. The exact details of how they were drafted belong to the background section.

Note that Erik doesn't "hide" the data - it's present all over the article. There's no need for the lead to be that detailed. Add a sentence, something along "Estonian military formations have played an important role in the outcome of the battle" - just don't add all the detail. --Illythr (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Illythr. It's clear, the conscription call had an impact. Just don't dwarf the battle with it. --Erikupoeg (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hate to point out that currently The German forces included Estonian conscript formations and a number of foreign volunteer units.[1][2] By engaging in the war, the Estonian leadership hoped to attract Western support for the cause of Estonia's independence from the USSR.[3] [4] doesn't make much sense as it's taken out of context. It should be made clear what exactly are you talking about. Perhaps the story was spelled out too much in detail withe the longer version. But still, it has to make sense to somebody who reads the article first time and knows nothing about the subject. Currently I don't know what is it saying exactly.--Termer (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then add "These Estonian units had a significant impact on the course and outcome of the battle(source,source)" or something to that end between the present sentences. --Illythr (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How about:"The German forces included Estonian conscript formations and a number of foreign volunteer units.[1][2] By supporting the German conscription call, the Estonian leadership hoped to attract Western support for the cause of Estonia's independence from the USSR.[3][4]"

This has the same problem Termer points out - the reader will ask himself - what call? so what? who cares? - this is basically a result of trying to tackle the controversy part, which I'd rather exclude from the lead, and only present the basic facts everyone will agree with - that they participated, and that their participation was significant to the outcome. This would hopefully leave the whole "Nazi collaborators/freedom fighters" thing away from the lead. --Illythr (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok: there is a difference between "Estonian conscript formations" and a "general conscription call supored by Jüri Uluots" that resulted up to 100,000 soldiers in the end. And the most important:

With these reinforcements the Soviet advance was halted for about six months and the front was settled on the Narva line until September 1944. By engaging in the war, Estonian leadership hoped to attract Western support for the cause of Estonia's independence from the USSR and thus ultimately restore it after the Soviet occupation in 1940 and the German occupation since 1941. --Termer (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest With these reinforcements the Wehrmacht was able to halt the Soviet advance for about six months, holding the front along the Narva line until September 1944. By engaging... - it was a overall Wehrmacht effort after all.--Illythr (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not a Wehrmacht effort overall, the battle has been described by the most of historians as the battle of Waffen-SS. Estonians were not allowed to serve in the ranks of Wehrmacht (only in rear service), and not in the SS either, only the Waffen-SS , the battle-ss and some semi police-border guard units.--Termer (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Weren't the Waffen-SS divisions subject to the OKW during WW2 as well? But ok, replace "Wehrmacht" with "German armies" then. --Illythr (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me.--Termer (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the phrase: "By engaging in the war, Estonian leadership hoped to attract Western support for the cause of Estonia's independence from the USSR and thus ultimately restore it after the Soviet occupation in 1940" looks a little bit strange. By that moment, the USSR was the Western Allies' ally, therefore, everyone fighting against her, or, more specifically, retarding the Soviet advancement towards Berlin, was considered a US/UK's enemy, not only de jure, but also de facto. Therefore, the only Western support the Estonians could hope to get was that of Nazist Germany.
The refrernce to the decision of the U.S. High Commission in Germany is irrelevant in that concrete state because: a it had been issued in quite different political situation (Cold War), and b it excluded Estonian Waffen-SS from SS, not from German Armed Forces. I think, everybody agrees that in 1944 not only SS, but whole German Armed Forces was an organisation hostile to the Government of the United States. Of course, after German surrender the latter ceased to be such an organisation, however, we are talking about 1944, not a second half of 1945.
I conclude that such a formulation suggests one of the following: a Estonian politicians were extremely naive and stupid, or b some WP editor has been inaccurate.
b seems more probable.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe, instead of mentionig of (highly improbable in that situation) Western support, it makes sense to refer to the Estonian WWI experience, and to tell about Estonian hope to repeat such a trick?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it didn't make much sense to me either. that's why I rewrote the section according to the sources: By giving it's support to the German conscription call, the unofficial Estonian underground government had hoped to recreate the Estonian national army and restore Estonia's independence.[8] [9]--Termer (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. The idea behind this often described by contemporaries an by historians was an attempt to repeat the situation during WWI when the Germans were retreating and the Russians attacking, in the middle the Estonians were able to form their national army and after the Estonian War of Independence achieved independence. Well, we all know that it dint work out like that during WWII and the Estonian War of Independence II was a failure.--Termer (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it still gives way too much detail for the intro - all this exact conscription dates and numbers, the "highly motivated and well equipped" etc really belong into the background and course sections. --Illythr (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "highly motivated and well equipped" etc. is almost a direct citation from the book by Christopher, Ailsby that talks about the battle of Narva. It's a most relevant fact that explains why and how the front was halted for half a year. --Termer (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't dispute the relevance or truth of it - just that it's all background of the actual event and thus doesn't belong into the intro (the Waffen-SS were always better equipped than regular Wehrmacht units anyway, AFAIK). Bur anyway, let's wait and see what other editors will say. --Illythr (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Although you are generally right (I mean, when we speak about an abstract generalized WP military article), for this specific case everything written by Termer seems relevant for the intro. It is a very complicated case, so some things should be clarified from the very beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see the facts disappear again from the article, and not only facts but a number of sources, several books published in English that look into the subject have simply vanished from there overnight. Also, once such clear accusations of illegal activities have been spelled out, it better be sourced, what kind of courts exactly have determined anybody's kilt in that matter? After these recent edits I again do not know why would be any of this like illegal Estonian conscripts and recreate the national army and restore the independence of the country relevant to this article? --Termer (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try to fit the facts and citations, you are trying to provide, to the "Aims of Estonian resistance movement" section. They do not belong in the lead, which should be short - who, what, when, where, outcome, special. You are welcome to edit the lead, but keep the Estonian background in one sentence. --Erikupoeg (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not the way it works here Erikupoeg, you have 2 guys telling you that if the Estonian involvement is considered important, it has to be spelled out in the articles lead section. Since a number of sources say (the ones you've removed) that the reason Germans were able to halt the front for an half a year at Narva was the general conscription call in Estonia, it's most relevant to the subject in hand and has to be spelled out. After your edits, it's not clear how the whole "Estonian stuff" would be relevant to the article--Termer (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. The reasons why the Germans were able to halt the front at Narva have nothing much to do with the "Aims of Estonian resistance movement". Like the sources said, the Estonian underground government may have wanted to restore the Estonian national Army and Independence of Estonia, in reality the general conscript call only served the military aims of the Germans. Please start making a difference between facts and opinions. And that would include the current accusation against Juri Uluots who according to WP has supported illegal actions.According to whom exactly other than WP has Juri Uluots been accused of such crimes? --Termer (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

... and you have two guys stating the opposite. Obviously we will not settle this by voting.

About the illegality of the German conscription: I hope you can get your hands on the "Estonia 1940–1945" report by the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity issued in 1999 and read all about it. For a summary, look at Collaboration during WWII#Estonia. In a nutshell: Article 44 of the Hague Convention, 1907 forbids the occupying power to recruit the civilian citizens of the occupied country. Jüri Uluots as a professor of law was perfectly well aware of it. No-one has looked at Uluots' support as a crime, as his support had no legal power. However, the opinion of the report is, that had they managed to establish Estonian Government in 1944, the Republic of Estonia would have suffered the consequences of being a German co-belligerent. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not about voting but about reason. the reason the Germans were able to halt the Soviet advance was the successful general conscription call In Estonia according to those sources that you have removed from the article. Now, in case anything is considered illegal it has to be spelled out according to whom? You can't just go around on WP and tell that something was illegal. Like the occupation of Estonia was illegal according to X and not illegal according to Y, so is it with everything. The reason you're not willing to separate facts from opinions have been compromising the related articles in the first place and have caused a number of editors raising concerns on the talk pages. So please, start cooperating with other editors and address the concerns otherwise there might be troubles ahead nobody needs to have on WP. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're oversimplifying the reasons for the outcomes. You have two books that state, the Estonians won the battle. I give you a dozen sources, that owe the outcome to something else. The Soviet battle reports owe their 'failure' to the lack of communication between the artillery and the infanctry. R. Landwehr owes the 'victory' to the European ideals that the international volunteers fought for and so on. The "Estonia 1940–1945" report by the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity and Mart Laar owe the outcome to a highly complicated set of major factors, including the terrain, the Soviet tactical and organizational mistakes, the German machinery, the international volunteers, the Estonians, and much more. So if we have agreed to break the reasons for the outcome in the lead, then all of the major factors deserve to be mentioned. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But the citation has been there all along!!! --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

all of the major factors deserve to be mentioned Sure, now we are getting somewhere. In case multiple perspectives exist within a topic, each has to be spelled out fairly, please see WP:NPOV, the fundamental principle of Wikipedia. And the reason the principle has been ignored has caused the concerns including the tagging of this and related articles in the first place.--Termer (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Then quit pushing this single aspect to the lead and start making it more WP:NPOV, why don't you? --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. Nobody has ever said the Estonians won the battle. What the sources say is that thanks to the general conscription call" With these reinforcements the Germans were able to halt the Soviet advance for about six months and the front was settled on the Narva and Tannenberg lines until September 1944. And that is one of the fundamental facts about the Narva battle that belongs like any major "single aspect" to the lead section.--Termer (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes! And it will be perfect, if you keep it this compact. --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is clear why it was important and how is it relevant, it may be as compact as it can get. Also, the Estonian involvement and the goals of the resistant movement need to be separated in the article. It's one thing to say what were the goals of the Estonian underground government and what was the actual outcome. And the fact that these were pretty far from each other needs to be spelled out in the article content.--Termer (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Other reasons for the outcomes are just as complicated, as the Soviet tactics, the terrain, the ideals of European volunteers. What do you think the lead will look like, if we want to get all aspects balanced and give each one of them four sentences? It's already a separate paragraph on "Lead up to the Battle". --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who said that it should be easy to deal with complicated topics on WP. But since this one here is far from being one of the most controversial subjects on WP compared to for example Holodomor, I don't share your worries at the moment since it's more important to address the general concerns that have been risen by a number of editors. And the first thing that needs to happen, all major aspects of the battle according to any POV's have to be broken down at the lead. That would take it towards the removal of the tag. Once the lead has been nailed down, the content can follow.--Termer (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly which editors' worries would an overview on the Estonian background address? --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. So the bottom line of this would be, since according to WP:NPOV The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy you should feel free to add any facts you might consider relevant to the lead section instead of removing or even blanking out sourced facts with references. In case the lead gets too long, we can always narrow it down and move anything that's too detailed down to the article content. --Termer (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. In that case, under which policy did the Literature section get the axe? --Erikupoeg (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You should feel free to restore the Literature section after rewriting it according to WP:WEASEL while keeping in mind that it should not read as an abstract political commentray but as a list of factual statements: according to whom this is/was like that, who exactly says so etc.--Termer (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PS.It would also need to list all relevant literature, and factually incorrect opinions like the subject has been ignored by western scholars would not need to dominate the section since the evidence and given sources in the article speak of exact opposite.--Termer (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, that generally, the lead does not present facts that are not present in the article body. --Erikupoeg (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what exactly and why did you point this out since instead of moving anything down to the content section from the lead, you chose to delete the facts and sources all together.--Termer (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Defensive military campaign"

During a relatively long discussion I pointed out at the quite obvious fact that the articles about offensive or defensive battles are impossible in WP, because almost always one side is in offensive whereas another side is in defensive. Therefore, please, avoid using terms defensive battle or something like that, because it clearly demonstrates one's highly biased POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

agree, that's common sense--Termer (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a defensive battle, but a defensive campaign (with numerous battles of all types). The "battle" part is just a popular name, which seems to have stuck (hm, I'm beginning to see mrg's point in his battles against the word...). AFAIK, Germany didn't plan any strategic offensives during that period in the area. Anyhow, my point was to clearly mark the campaign as a German one, because the Soviet side had two campaigns of its own (the winter-spring campaign (lifting the Leningrad siege, etc) and the summer-autumn campaign (Narva and Baltic offensives, etc)), with a completely different scope and time frame. A part of one of them was also called "Narva operation," confounding the issue futher. --Illythr (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I was neither defensive battle nor defensive campaign. Depending on the operation's phase it was defensive for the Germans and offensive for the Soviets and vice versa. That is why the terms defensive and offensive are senseless until it has not been specified what side is in defensive. It has been (reasonably) proposed that the name should be used according to the side in offensive or (what usually is the same) to the side holding an initiative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you agree that the campaign was a German one conducted against (at least) two separate Soviet campaigns? --Illythr (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you may be correct, but stating it's a German campaign gives it unnecessary bias, as if they had no opposition. I agree, it does not belong to the list of Soviet campaigns, but: "It takes two to tango," therefore I do not agree to begin the lead with stating, it was a German campaign. It was a Soviet offensive and a German defensive, everything else is just a technical matter of classification. --Erikupoeg (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No. We just state that the German were in defensive, whereas the Soviets were in offensive. I think, calling it the "German defensive campaign" makes sense because the Soviets didn't consider the Battle of Narva a separate campaign. The latter also has to be stated explicitly, by the way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So it was a German defensive against nobody's offensive campaign? --Erikupoeg (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If we tell that the Battle of Narva was a defensive campaign it is a clear bias, because we stand on the point of view of the side in defense (in that case, the Germans and the Estonians). However, if we tell that is was a "German defensive campaign" and add that it took place on the WWII Eastern Front it is clear that the opposite side was the USSR and that was a defensive campaign for the Germany. I see no confusion and no contradiction here.
The only thing that may rise a concern is that the name is given according to the side in defensive. That is unusual, I agree. We use German names for Basbarossa, Case Blue or Zitadelle, but Soviet names are used for Vistula-Oder offensive, Uranus or Bagration. However, in this case the Soviet side refused to consider there events a separate operation or campaign, so there is no choice other than to use a German name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah finally, my point seems to be getting across. The article focuses on German actions, bears the German campaign name and mainly describes things from the German perspective. The right way would be indeed to completely rebuild the article according to the accepted frame, but good luck with that. So, barring that, we simply need to point out that the operational scope of this campaign was set by the German military.

The article gives equal weight to the Soviet and German sides. The Soviet aims and Soviet operations are given equal space. The operational scope is given by us, the editors of Wikipedia, not the German military. At least speaking for myself, I don't take orders from the German military. You seem to mix up the actual combat and the classification of actual combat to separate operations. The fact, that the Soviet historiography does not list it among the operations, does not restrict it from being a Soviet operation. It just wasn't listed as such. --Erikupoeg (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We, the editors of Wikipedia, have no right to determine the operational scope of military operations. Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR to realize, that had what you've said here been true, this article would have to be speedily deleted. The combat and the outcome is still mainly described from the German point of view, but your recent edits have improved the balance. --Illythr (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

Eric, I had already pointed out that there were two Soviet offensive campaigns during the given time frame. They just don't coincide with the German one this article is about. Actually, this is already mentioned in the first section of this talk page. --Illythr (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sad to call you to do your homework again. There was the Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive (January 15 to March 1; ending with the Kingisepp-Gdov Offensive. No mention of any battles around Narva, just forcing the Germans to Narva river, securing two bridgeheads and end of operation.) and Narva Operation (capturing Narva on July 25th to July 30th. Not a word of one ferocious battle lasting for fourteen days in a row). Nothing else. Also repeatedly mentioned at this talk page. --Erikupoeg (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how Paul or Illythr can basically say "the Soviet side refused to consider there events a separate operation or campaign", when Stalin clearly stated the objective that Narva must be seized within a certain period of time:

"It is mandatory that our forces seize Narva no later than 17 February 1944. This is required both for military as well as political reasons. It is the most important thing right now. I demand that you undertake all necessary measures to liberate Narva no later than the period indicated. (signed) I. Stalin".

Not withstanding the issues of Soviet historiography, unless the Soviet generals habitually ignored Stalin's direct orders, there clearly was an operation mounted by the Soviets to take Narva at the same time an operation mounted by the Germans to defend Narva. Martintg (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant the whole period, February 2, 1944 – September 19, 1944. If you feel I am wrong, what Soviet name would you propose for that campaign?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle for Narva, according to Евгений Кривошеев (1984) "Битва за Нарву". --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The attempt to take Narva by February had failed, eventually ending one campaign and settling the front line in place for a few months. A successful attempt to take the city was mounted in the next campaign, fulfilling the Soviet goal of taking Narva by the 30th of July. This article, however, continues to describe the events as a "battle for Narva" for months after the city had been taken, actually forgetting (until recently) to notice that event. Why, the successful loss of Narva is even marked as a German victory!

Martintg: Yes, there were several operations to that end, one eventually succeeding, the six day Narva operation. However, this article focuses on the implications of the battle for German and Estonian units only (again, until recently). The Soviet forces, on the on the other hand are mentioned in a rather dismissive way: "a huge wave came our way and we had to retreat."

So, these articles must either be marked as a German/Estonian account of events, or balanced at least formally, so that the reader might hope to understand, how come the battle was a Soviet success if both of its constituent phases were won by the Germans? --Illythr (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: One other point - the Baltic strategic offensive, the one that pushed Germans out of Estonia entirely, began on the 14th of September with the area-specific Tallinn Offensive commencing on the 17th (the "huge wave" as it is called in this article). This creates an inconsistency between the operations, which is neatly resolved here simply by assigning the diverging operations to their respective side. Why not use that solution here? --Illythr (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You say there were several operations to that end, one eventually succeeding, the six day Narva operation "fulfilling the Soviet goal of taking Narva by the 30th of July". But all these operations had the same goal, to take Narva, which Stalin originally ordered to be taken by February 17, not July 30. The way you describe it is that there were only two operations, the first one in February, then the one in July, with nothing in between. This is not the case. There were also Soviet attempts in March and in May/June, with German counter attacks to attempt to clear the Soviet bridgehead in April. It seems to me that for political reasons Soviet historiography would prefer to present a particular viewpoint that diminishes the importance of the battle, but the fact remains that there was a series of operations, i.e. a campaign, to take Narva, which Stalin saw at the time as "the most important thing right now" and ordered his generals to take "all necessary measures". The failure to take Narva in February meant Finland stayed in the war for another six months and the Germans could control the Baltic Sea for another six months. Of course phrases like "huge wave", etc, needs to be cleaned up, but one cannot deny the strategic significance of the Narva battle for all participants. Martintg (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I describe it, there were two major Soviet campaigns, consisting of lesser Soviet operations. This one, however, is a German classification (note how its first phase ends dead in the middle of the Soviet Narva Operation). Simple as that.

Quite the opposite is true, however. the article does not end in the middle of anything, but with the end of the Soviet Narva Operation, with the end of the Soviet capture of Narva. Simple as that. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look into the infobox of the Battle of the Narva bridgehead: it ends on July, 26. Sure, the article goes beyond that date, but the scope of that battle is clearly German - it was for them that the defence had to be aborted on 26th, whereas the Soviet offensive to take Narva was at its height. --Illythr (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The March-July "hole" is a problem of Soviet historiography (or maybe lack of knowledgeable enough editors), and unless a Soviet/Russian source can be found with the individual names of all those failed attempts, the German/Estonian sources have to be used simply to patch the hole (Krivosheev's 1984 "Battle for Narva" seems like a good place to start looking, though). My point here is to merely attribute the February-September scope to the side that created it in the first place. --Illythr (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We have to work with the sources we have. As I recall, the original article was written from sources written by German veterans. Then some Soviet sources were added, now we have also some Estonian sources too. Hopefully someone can get their hands on Krivosheev's 1984 "Battle for Narva" and make this article even better. But I don't think the February-September scope is a purely German/Estonian view point. In fact I would broaden the scope to October/November to include the final battle on Sõrve Peninsula and rename this article to Combat in Estonia (1944). An interesting book that incorporates this scope is Hitler, Dönitz, and the Baltic Sea by Howard D. Grier. Martintg (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

I would agree to broaden the scope of the article to Combat in Estonia, 1944, so it would accord to a number of Soviet sources and the capital "Estonia in 1940-1945" by the Commission of Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. The combat spanned from February to November, while the current Battle of Narva (1944) spanned combat until August 12th. First battles out of the surroundings of Narva (not considering the sole Battle for Narva Bridgehead#Meerapalu landing operation) in Estonia started in the beginning of August, so we practically have the content ready here.--Erikupoeg (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Before renaming or expanding anything we should get this article under control first. Which doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article on Combat in Estonia (1944). But like said, lets get this one straight at first, it would be more reasonable to go for quality instead of quantity in my opinion. And expanding the scope is not going to put behind the problems we're facing here with this article.--Termer (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a good idea to me, as expanding the scope would provide more complete a picture, but won't this infringe on WP:OR? Do we have anyone but Wikipedia editors defining such a scope? --Illythr (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do:

• F.I.Paulman (1980). Ot Narvy do Syrve (From Narva to Sõrve) (in Russian). Tallinn: Eesti Raamat;
• Toomas Hiio (1999). Combat in Estonia in 1944. In: Toomas Hiio, Meelis Maripuu, Indrek Paavle (Eds.). Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. --Erikupoeg (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

However, if we wish to be consistent with either Soviet or German historiography (and we obviously can't fail with the Soviet operations), we could make it the Baltic Campaign, 1944 according to Army Group North#Baltic Defensive Campaign. Should we build the article as a higher level article, the Battle of Narva would comprise about a half of it. --Erikupoeg (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Estonia would be a belligerent in such an article. Since the power was taken over from Germans by the Estonian national government and it's military units in Tallinn on September 18. The last Germans units had bordered ships in Tallinn in early morning on 22 September 1944. The only units fighting the Soviets at Tallinn were the Estonians, some of them already wearing the pre-war uniform of the Estonian Army. See

• Prepositions of the Historical Conference "The Defenders of Tallinn on 22 September 1944" ISBN 978-9985-9822-3-5 --Termer (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The position of the History Commission, published in "Estonia 1940-1945": "As the Government of Otto Tief could not assert itself against the occupying powers, it cannot be maintained that the Soviets launched a war against the Republic of Estonia in September 1944." --Erikupoeg (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason is much simple, the Republic of Estonia was annexed with USSR in 1940 and the Soviets didn't recognize the government of Otto Tief. That's fine but where you're going to put the defenders of Tallinn then? They wouldn't be part of either German or Soviet forces, And the Germans were all gone by the early morning on Sept. 22. But still there were battles fought. Nobody has said it was the Republic of Estonia anyway. It was Otto Tiefs declared national government de facto not recognized by anybody in the world except Estonia nowadays.--Termer (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just like Forest Brothers or Ukrainian Insurgent Army, they were not the army of a sovereign state. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is substantial difference between forest brothers and the Otto Tief's Government de facto in office for 4 days and it's military forces that had seized the power in Tallinn. The reason it wasn't a sovereign state lies somewhere else. like already pointed out: it's determined by the international recognition only and since the Tief's Government didn't have one, it didn't represent any sovereign states. which doesn't mean that they didn't represent the Estonian National government attempting to restore the sovereignty of Estonia.--Termer (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right, the Johannes Pitka boys defended a government, that never established itself as a power governing any substantial portion of Estonia (perhaps only the Government buildings). Therefore the government never had a legal significance. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't an issue. the question was that in a broader picture involving Combat in Estonia in 1944 there was a third party that took part in the combats and needs to be defined for WP purposes. Similar to seizing the power in Tallinn on sept 18 is Warsaw Uprising that clearly defines the Belligerents as Poland and Germany even though Poland wasn't a sovereign state or anything and Armia Krajowa corresponds directly as a parallel to the Pitka units and the Polish Underground State to the Estonian underground government at the time.--Termer (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out at several major differences between Poland and Estonia.

1. Poland (in contrast to Estonia) hasn't been neutral since the beginning of WWII (the war started in Poland, actually);
2. Poland never formally surrendered. In other words, it had been constantly in the state of war with Germany;
3. Poland had an internationally recognized government in exile;
4. No major country questioned the sovereignity of Poland. There was no need to take any actions to re-establish it. The subject of a dispute between Stalin and Western democracies was a. post-war borders of Poland; b a composition of a new Polish government (Mikołajczyk vs Bierut). Therefore, a Soviet invasion in 1944-45 could'n lead and hadn't lead to disappearance of Poland from the polytical map.
5. In addition to thw Warsaw uprising, the Poles fought in Eastern and Western front (for instance in the Battle of Monte Cassino). Therefore, Poland remained to be a belligerent since a beginning of the war and the Warsaw uprising didn't add much to that.

Therefore, I see more differences between Poland and Estonia then parallelisms.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

One minor remark - whatever side you guys decide to assign these estonian formations, just don't leave them there simply as "Estonians," because there were some on the other side as well. If you're sticking with the Waffen-SS symbol, then call them the Estonian Legion, or just "Tief's Estonian government" or something. --Illythr (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The term Estonian Legion was not officially used from 1943. During 1944, the short name for the formation was the Estonian Division, included among the Estonians themselves. If we change Estonians to Estonian Division, the next question will be, why do we exclude the "Nordland" Division or the "Nederland" brigade. As if they didn't make a significant contribution or didn't serve separate ideals from the Germans. Tief's Estonian Government sounds as a coup, not what it actually was - a failing atttempt by the Estonian resistance movement or the Estonian Government in Exile to restore the Republic of Estonia. --Erikupoeg (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get it really how those major differences by Paul Siebert are relevant once there is the need to define the Estonians between 3 different sides that took part in Combat in Estonia in 1944. There were Estonians who fought within the Red army, Estonians who fought with the Germans and then there were Estonians that were under the command of Tief's Estonian government and Admiral Pitka.--Termer (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this has a direct relation to what you state:"Similar to seizing the power in Tallinn on sept 18 is Warsaw Uprising that clearly defines the Belligerents as Poland and Germany even though Poland wasn't a sovereign state or anything and Armia Krajowa corresponds directly as a parallel to the Pitka units and the Polish Underground State to the Estonian underground government at the time.". I just point your attention at 3 facts: 1. Poland was a sovereign state, 2. It had already been a belligerent by that time, 3. Warsaw uprising wasn't aimed to restore national sovereignity. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

These are details that do not change the big picture. 1. Estonia was a sovereign state represented by the Consulate in New York (de jure)3. the seize of power in tallinn was aimed to restore national sovereignity (de facto). Sure, Poland was legally in the war, Estonia wasn't . Just that nobody has suggested it was the Republic of Estonia that was a belligerent. We been through this already. but the fact remains, once it's about Combat in Estonia 1944 in general instead of strictly the battle of Narva, there was a third party in the conflict that was represented by the National Committee of the Republic of Estonia and the armed forces they had formed in 1944 under the command of admiral Pitka, the units that took part in fighting against both the Germans and the Soviets around Tallinn.--Termer (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

... How about we tag them as the Estonian resistance movement or the Estonian Government in Exile (accompanied by the national flag, I guess)?. Anything we have, mustn't communicate the existance of a functioning government, but a pro-Republic-of-Estonia-movement --Erikupoeg (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Estonian Government in Exile is a separate chapter, that was exactly like Polish Government in Exile not recognized by anybody in the world after WWII. the most common name in English used for the body which proclaimed the restablishment of the Republic of Estonia in 1944 that formed the Otto Tiefs government and the military forces by Pitka was The National Committee of the Republic of Estonia [13]--Termer (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Polish government in exile had been recognized during the war, more precisely, by the moment the uprising started. Frankly, the only thing I object is drawing close analogies with Poland. Estonia and Poland has almost nothing in common but MRP. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The representation of Estonian government was recognized during the war by the western allies and all the way up to the restoration of independence in the form of the Estonian Consulate in New York. After the war, both the Estonian and Polish governments in exile were only recognized by both national governments respectively after the collapse of the USSR in 1991-1992, as the credentials and attributes of the exile governments were taken over by the domestically elected governments that re-establised the continuity of both Republics. --Termer (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about the WWII period. During that period the Polish government in exile was more or less real political force, in contrast to thier Estonian colleagues. This government was at war with Germany, and their representatives had a relation to hostilities throughout in Europe in contrast to thier Estonian colleagues. Note, I just reproduce your own (or Erick's) arguments you put forward a couple weeks ago. Or I misunderstood something?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a bad example since Poland has always been a real political force compared to Estonia no matter what period we're talking about. and that is the main difference between the 2, including WWII or any other period in the past, in present and/or in the future.--Termer (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say the only thing Estonia and Poland have in common is that both of them suffered from Stalin during XX century. Everything else was different.

1. Poland was the first country that entered WWII and never surrendered - Estonia maintained neutrality (declared a neutrality in 1940 and 1944);
2. Poland sent a fourth largest military force in Europe against Hitler - Estonia didn't resist nazi almost at all;
3. The Poles never collaborated with Hitler - the Estonians fought in German army.
4. Estonian Waffen Grenadier Division

fought for Germany until the end of the war - only 471 people signed up in Poland when Germany announced a conscription call.
Once again, I see no analogy between Poland and Estonia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So what? In case, you trying to imply Poles are more worthy of respect or pity than the Estonians, here are some equally irrelevant facts to put the foregoing into some perspective:

1. Poland was the country whose intransigence over the Danzig Corridor and failure to prevent violence against ethnic Germans provoked Germany and started WWII. After the war it became a staunch ally of the Soviet Union and gave the name of its capital to the defence organisation that helped the Soviet Union threaten the freedom of Western Europe for decades. In Estonia, armed resistance to the Soviet Union continued for decades after the end of WWII long after Poland had effectively "surrendered".
2. Excluding countries that were to become German allies, Poland already had the 4th largest army in Europe before the war began. Without the assistance of Rumania and Hungary those that escaped to the West would arguably have ended up aiding the German war effort through labor or as anti-Soviet volunteers much as those on the other side of the Molotov-Ribbentrop line did for the Soviets against the Germans.
3. Poles frequently collaborated with the Nazis in delivering Jews up for mass murder as well as initiating their own atrocities against them. Poles were prominent in their roles in the running of the concentration camps under the direction of the SS. Polish collaboration with the Soviets culminated in mass murder, rape and ethnic cleansing of over a millions German civilians from Silesia and Pomerania.
4. 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS was entirely comprised of Polish citizens volunteers. This division entered service before the Estonian SS division and fought for Germany until the end of the war.
5. Estonian human losses suffered under Soviet occupation in 1940 and post-1944 were severe by comparison with the Soviet occupation of Poland 1939-1941 and post-war.

{outdent] Paul, there are many parallels between Poland and Estonia, for example the liquidation of the military high command and deportation of civilians and other repressions perpetrated by the Soviets. Stalin even viewed the Warsaw uprising as a criminal venture and tried some members of the Polish government-in-exile as fascist collaborators. But I think we are going around in circles here, I thought the issue of co-belligerency was settled, i.e. that co-belligerency can only be by sovereign governments or recognized by the other conflicting party under international law, and neither was Estonia sovereign nor did the allies or axis countries recognize Estonia as a co-belligerent. Additionally, neutrality also requires other country's recognition, but Estonia was occupied and thus couldn't fulfill her neutrality obligations either. So in summary, Estonia had declared neutrality but couldn't fulfill it, nor can it be considered a co-belligerent either because it was neither sovereign or recognized as such, even though it made a significant military contribution in its local area. So I am lost on what we are attempting to resolve here. Martintg (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Martintg, all what you write about parallels can be summarized in few words: "Both Poland and Estonia were Stalin's victims". I fully agree with that, moreover, I have already pointed out at that common feature. And we are not going around the circles here, because the question we are currently discussing is quite different: besides the similarity mentioned above, how many other similarities existed between Poland and Estonia during WWII? To my opinion, almost no. By the way, I remembered one more dramatic difference:

5. Majority human losses Poland sustained during WWII were inflicted by Germany (even forgetting a Jewish population)- in Estonia the Nazist occupational regime was suprisingly mild.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It keeps going in circles because everybody keeps talking about different things and now you Paul Siebert have ended up counting human losses in Estonia and Poland that has absolutely nothing to do with what this thread was all about. Lets not get carried away OK and focus what this is all about: If you want to expand the current article into something that talks about the 1944 Combats in Estonia in general you end up having 3 belligerents instead of 2 like in the battle of Narva. Detailed analyses on similarities and differences between Poland and Estonia in WWII would belong to a completely different article that talks about comparative politics and are already available to a certain extent at Soviet occupations.--Termer (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the point Paul Siebert is trying to make here. Latvia suffered a similar civilian death rate as Poland, yet they supplied men for two Waffen SS divisions. Can we get back to discussing how to improve the article. Martintg (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not take it personally Paul Siebert but you keep dragging the discussion into not directly related general chat about the issues surrounding the topic by coming up with statements from time to time that show you have no clue what are you talking about. These kind of provoking statements have been working so far in order to generate meaningless chat on this talk page but it needs to come to an end now.--Termer (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Result

Seeing as how the battle, called "Battle of Narva", begins with Narva in German hands and ends with the city in Soviet hands, I don't understand how the outcome can be qualified as anything other than a Soviet victory. That pretty much comes from definition of the "Battle of..."... type battles - when one of the parties is in control of the battlefield at the end, it is the victor, regardless of how long it took or how many casualties were suffered (this is what the qualifiers "Decisive" or "Pyrrhic..." are for - and this battle was neither). That it didn't occur sooner, is, of course, an important aspect, but you wouldn't change the result of the Battle of Berlin to "Soviet operation halted" by limiting its scope to the 1st of May 1945 and arguing that since the Soviet army failed to take the city by that date, as Stalin had demanded, it must be something other than a victory? --Illythr (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The name Battle of Narva indicates the location of the front and should not be confused with the main operational goal of the Soviet campaign which was the liberation of Estonia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if we applied your definition:"When one of the parties is in control of the battlefield at the end, it is the victor," we'd realise that Army Group Narwa possessed the Tannenberg line as a significant part of the battlefield at the end of the battle and was not therefore not defeated. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case you need to rename the article to something other than "Battle of Narva" (say, "Estonian operation" (but then you'd have to stick to the Soviet-defined scope for their own operation), or maybe "Battle of Narva and the Tannenberg line") and change its operational scope to something other than "Narva", because it makes no sense right now - I am not aware of a "Battle of <Place>" where the battle ending with one side in (permanent) control of the <Place> is called something other than a victory for that side.

To summarize: The main operation goal of the Soviet Narva offensive operation was the capture of Narva. It succeeded on the 30th of July. That's it. If you want to portray this as something other than a Soviet victory, you must adjust the operational area accordingly. Otherwise, the stark clash of Estonian historiography with reality is ruining the credibility of the otherwise fairly ok article. --Illythr (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MILMOS#NAME, the name of a military article indicates the location of the operations (for the reader to understand generally, where the operations took place). It is not a strict definition of the operational area nor the operational goal. Therefore I don't see a problem. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Except MILMOS says nothing what you say in your second sentence. But regardless, the title of the battle is misleading if it is meant to describe something other than the battle of Narva (16km is a ways off). Perhaps I can fix that... --Illythr (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Battle_of_Stalingrad-en.svg. Most of the operations take place more than 16 km outside Stalingrad. Still there are no claims to call it the Battle of Stalingrad Oblast. Please understand that the name does not define the operational scope of the article but is merely a geographic indication of the whereabouts of the campaign. In other words, most of the Battle of Stalingrad was fought more than 10 km outside the city. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Beshanov, Fedyuninskij, Glantz, Hiio, Krivosheev, and Laar claim the liberation of Estonia as the operational goal of the campaign. According to them, Narva was designed to be the last obstacle on the way to Tallinn. What are your sources that deny that? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What sources? The battle is called the "Battle of Narva"! This should provide us with the notion that Narva was somehow important to this battle, yes? --Illythr (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was, and so were the 50 km of the west bank of the Narva River, Auvere railway station, Sirgala settlement, Leningrad-Tallinn highway, Lenigrad-Tallinn railway, Mereküla, and Sinimäed Hills. The All of them were key positions fought over in the Battle of Narva. The article also involves action in Meerapalu, northern coast of Lake Peipus and Tallinn. This doesn't mean that any of them or even the whole bunch of the locations put together were the operational goal of the campaign. In fact, the name does not say anything about the operational goals. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break 1

Liberation of the Estonian SSR was the operational goal of the Estonian Operation, as you say yourself (it would be fairly ridiculous to say that, had the Soviets succeeded in February, they'd go on to besiege Tallinn and other major cities in the Battle of Narva, don't you agree?). --Illythr (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Narva never existed in the Soviet plans. Their plan was to overrun the poorly prepared Panther positions in two weeks. The operation was called Estonian operation and its operational goals were to destroy Army Group North and liberate Soviet Estonia. Had the Soviets succeeded, the Soviet historiography would have called the operation Tallinn Offensive operation. Let me point out that the Soviets do not call it Battle of Narva but consider it part of Kingissepp-Gdov Offensive. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it did - as the Narva Operation in July (see the ru interwiki). The early part (up to April or so) is indeed considered an attempt to exceed the goals of the previous operation, with the "real" Narva op beginning only in July. You know, it'd be great if there were a section somewhere in this article that would denote official Soviet operations, both strategic and tactical that fall within the time scope of this battle/article. --Illythr (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the very WP:LEAD you cite, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points - the fate of the namesake of the battle is unimportant? --Illythr (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#NAME:"the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" or "siege of Y", where X and Y are the locations of the operations." Why are you going beyond that, claiming that the namesake should be the main operational goal of the campaign? The town of Narva was not of prime importance in the Battle of Narva. It just turned out to be what the Soviets had to settle with in the campaign. The article should follow the reality - "What were the goals of the belligerent parties?" "Which party achieved more of their goals?" --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In short, the phrase The town of Narva was not of prime importance in the Battle of Narva. reads like nonsense. But now that I understand what you mean by that, I agree to leave it as it is now until I am able to find enough sources to build the Soviet operation tree (and goals) for the scope given. --Illythr (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break 2

Pick any relevant Russian source - if you look for Narva in the text, the July operation is almost invariably the main highlight. --Illythr (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have Paulman's "Ot Narvy do Syrve" at hand and it does not bring the capture of Narva to the main highlight. Summer Narva Operation (as he calls it) is one out of seven chapters considering the battles in Narva and Vaivara Parish. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you have me at a disadvantage. Does this book say anything about the preceding battles? What does it focus on, when discussing Narva? Grm, one more book for me to look for, looks like. --Illythr (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not dismiss the capture of Narva. It just doesn't highlight it as the main outcome of the battle. It has 7 chapters considering the battles around Narva (loosely translated):1. Kingissepp-Gdov Offensive, 2. Formation of bridgeheads 3. Enemy counter attack 4. New forces step into action 5. Another enemy counter attack 6. Summer Narva Offensive 7. Battle for Tannenberg Line. It doesn't have an outcomes chapter for neither the battles around Narva nor the liberation of Estonian SSR as a whole. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck, the event is celebrated in Narva to this day (on July 26th)! All of these sources name the capture of Narva and destruction of the Axis forces defending it as the operational goals of the Narva offensive (they just mention the one successful attempt to do so, and omit the failed ones), after the successful completion of which they were to advance towards the Gulf of Finland (according to Feduyninskiy, who does say something about the "lost" period). Stalin's order cited in this very article states that the capture of Narva is the "most important thing now". What other proof do you need? --Illythr (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Soviet sources consider battles for Narva as the initial part of the operation aimed at the destruction of Army Group North and the liberation of Soviet Estonia. Indeed, Stalin's daily order on Feb 14 mentions Narva as the only location. However, Stalin's order of Feb 22 tells the Leningrad Front to break through the Army Group Narwa defence, give a shock at the South-Estonian port of Pärnu, and direct two armies at South-East Estonia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(a response here would be redundant, see below) --Illythr (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break 3

Oh, I think see the problem now - you identify these individual engagements, including the Tartu Offensive, with their parent strategic offensive, and, by replacing their individual tactical goals (capture Narva, capture Tartu, destroy defenders) with the global one (liberate the ESSR) deny them victory, as, clearly, the strategic goal was not met in any of these tactical battles. The result of this is that the tactical Battle of Narva (in turn consisting of several Narva operations) became glued together with the strategic Estonian Operation. Nasty naming issue, I guess. Now I understand why you resist mentioning Narva in the outcome of the Battle of Narva - the article you are building is actually about the Estonian Operation, which mostly consists of the Battle of Narva, but has a broader goal and where the fate of the city is indeed not as central as it is to the Narva operations.

To summarize: The Battle of Narva was the first step in the strategic operation (not very well) known as the Estonian Operation. Unfortunately for the Soviets, it took them over six months to complete this first step and then they failed to make the next one, gaining a tactical victory, but turning the greater operation into a stalemate. --Illythr (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This would make sense if you established the Narva and Tartu tactical operations and their tactical goals based on good sources. Remember, a goal is something you set before the operation, not after you've accomplished it. Remember also that according to the Soviet historiography, no operation took place around the Narva River in March 2 - July 23, 1944 and no official operation in the Sinimäed Hills either. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did so for the Tartu operation. In case of Narva, this looks almost impossible for winter-spring combat, but is very easy for the official operation ([14]). Yes, no separate "official" operations between 2.3 and 23.7, but that doesn't mean the local commanders didn't have or attempt to fulfill any offensive goals set before them at the time. Basically, I maintain that there were strategic and tactical goals for this entire period, with the tactical ones being the capture of Narva and destruction of its defenders (something that Soviet units at that location tried to do until July 30th) and the strategic ones being the isolation and encirclement of the Army Group North/Narwa (liberation of the ESSR is more of a political goal, than a strategic one). BTW, the Sinimaed hills are considered part of the Narva Operation with "enemy resistance growing too stiff to press on following the success at Narva". --Illythr (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Estonian Operation

By the way, what is the source describing this Estonian Operation? My searches for anything called "Эстонская операция" or "Эстонская наступательная операция" come up with things completely unrelated to WW2. Google Books doesn't know of an operation under this name (both English and Russian) as well. --Illythr (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Estonian Operation is explicitly mentioned only in the catalogue of reports of the headquarters of the 2nd Shock Army under the name "Estonian Operation of the 2nd Shock Army of the Leningrad Front, July–September 1944" filed in the Estonian State Archive (previously the Archive of the Party). Yevgenij Krivosheev (Евгений Кривошеев (1984). "I. Sraženie dlinoj v polgoda (Half a year of combat)". Битва за Нарву, февраль-сентябрь 1944 год (The Battle for Narva, February-September 1944) (in Russian). Tallinn: Eesti raamat. pp. 9–87. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) calls the operation "Liberation of Soviet Estonia" which is not a suitable name for an operation in Wikipedia. Remember that the Soviet historiography re-scoped the Soviet operations after their execution according to their results and that the battles around Narva and the Tannenberg Line are not represented in any of the official Soviet operations. The Russian archives currently restrict access from Western historians, therefore we must use the best available sources to get the info on how the Soviets named their operations originally. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, "Liberation of..." is not a normal Soviet operation name. But you are right, as long as no good Russian sources are available, it will have to remain like this. My reason for asking was, however, to determine the scope of this operation in time. --Illythr (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.

bleep!, the Estonians and corrupted moderators are on this article 24/7! I tried posting Russian estimates, to outweight the Estonian propaganda like number, however they edited it back in 2 minutes!

This is ridiculous as hell! Besides, the Estonian source (they even edited away that it was an Estonian estimate in casualty section) is bleep! ridiculous! The Estonian inflicted a Kill:Death racio of 7:1?? bleep! it, even the GERMANS didn't touch that number in operation BARBOSSA!

This is so ridiculous it even surpasses Soviet revisionism by far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.189.184 (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Can some do something about this person's edits? He just reverted again claiming "there was no "battle of Narva" before september" in his edit comment. --Martintg (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The first thing the anonymous editor has to do is familiarizing himself with the above discussion (see several previous sections). To my opinion, his edits may be taken seriously if, and only if, any new arguments have been put forward by him (in addition to those presented few months ago).
However, to avoid problems in future, I propose to do what have been done in the Battle of Kursk article: since German and Soviet definitions of the battle's scope and duration are different, so the casualties are given according to these two timeframes. By analogy, I propose to include both Krivosheev's numbers for September and Laar's estimations for the whole battle, and to supplement these numbers with appropriate footnotes or remarks. To my opinion, that will help to prevent problems with not-well-educated editors in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For me it seems that the Battle of Narva (1944) gets confused with the Battle for Narva Bridgehead. Perhaps it's better to rename this article to something else?--Termer (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The scope and timeframe is so different that it doesn't really bear comparison. This article spans the period February to mid September, while Krivosheev's numbers are for September only. However the main combat at the Tannenburg line ended August already, September was really a new phase with Finland pulling out of the war making the German position in Estonia untenable. In my view the September period really warrants a separate article, and one already exists called Tallinn Offensive which began mid September, and Krivosheev's numbers relate to that. So the solution is to limit the scope of this article to the end of August --Martintg (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This would not have been the only place where the Red Army took heavy casualties as Stalin insisted on re-taking the Baltics, for example, Soviet losses attempting to take the Courland pocket (which was of no strategic importance). I would agree with "lining" up the two articles. There is a similar (though not to be solved the same way) numbers issue with the Courland pocket as Soviet numbers available are only for only subsets of the overall conflict. PētersV       TALK 14:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: since German and Soviet definitions of the battle's scope and duration are different, so the casualties are given according to these two timeframes — There is no German definition of the battle's scope or duration. At least none has come up in what I have read. Feel free to correct me. The scope of the article is defined by the book Битва за Нарву, февраль-сентябрь 1944 год (The Battle for Narva, February-September 1944) by Yevgeniy Krivosheev. Unfortunately, neither the source nor any other Soviet source gives a number of casualties for the scope which is partly why David Glantz in his essay lists three Narva Operations of the Red Army among the 'Lost battles'.

Re: For me it seems that the Battle of Narva (1944) gets confused with the Battle for Narva Bridgehead. I agree, but it is not the fault of the former which is a decent overhead article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, I am not going to question the facts. My only point is, as we are limited with existing secondary sources, then the facts from these sources should be presented, no matter how patchy these data are. If no numbers on Soviet casualties are available for the pre-September period (I mean explicit numbers), then the available numbers (only for September) should be presented, with needed explanation. If Laar made estimations for the whole period, then his numbers should be shown also, and it should be explained explicitly that these numbers are estimate. By doing that, you will prevent future comments similar to what 85.164.189.184 left.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The solution is not to include September figures at all. The second phase Battle of Tannenberg Line ended in August, and the September Soviet offensive, to which Krivosheev's numbers relate, is mentioned in the "Aftermath" section of that article. So it is clear that Krivosheev September numbers are beyond the scope of the article here, look at the dates in the info box, but should be mentioned in another article somewhere. --Martintg (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. A fortiori, neither sides suffered any noteworthy casualties in the surroundings of Narva and Tannenberg Line in September as the Germans quietly withdrew their lines in Operation Aster. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

20th Estonian SS-Volunteer Division

I added the original Order of Battle[15] based upon the chapter "Combat in Estonia in 1944". in Toomas Hiio, Meelis Maripuu, & Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity Tallinn. pp. 1035–1094, which I have a copy. According to that source, it is listed as "20th Armed Grenadier (Infantry) Division of the SS (1st Estonian)" as of March 1st, 1944. --Martintg (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Axis History Factbook says otherwise. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)