Talk:20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Estonia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Questionable source[edit]

Petri added a source about "Involvement of the Estonian SS Legion in War Crimes" (full name "Involvement of the Estonian SS Legion in War Crimes in 1941-1945 and the Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Estonia"). It is in the web page of Embassy of the Russian Federation in Denmark, author anonymous. I am not sure it is a valid wikisource, even cursory glance reveals several mistakes, both factual and language errors. However, because of the recent events, I will not remove it as a reference, but request that an independent editor with knowledge about 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) would review the source and determine its suitability. DLX 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the reference, and believe it is not a reliable source on the topic. The reference would be worthy of deletion if it wasn't made notable by virtue of endorsement by Russian Federation.
Thus, I recommend removing it as a reference, and adding a brief section on the order of "Russian officials have made assertions ... (see, for example, ...)." Digwuren 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe not that brief once all the mistakes are pointed out ... Digwuren 13:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri, at least three other editors agree that it is not reliable source. Please stop your childish edit warring - or at least, give a reason why an obviously flawed and unreliable source must be included to Wikipedia. DLX 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

This article is messy. needs reworking. Will do ASAP. Meanwhile I just tag it accordingly.--Termer 19:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Made a first pass on it but it's still a mess...shall continue ASAP, feel free to help meanwhile --Termer 08:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, here is what I'd do, call the article Estonian National Army Units in 1941-1944 or in WWII and work out a section for each, including the Finnish Infantry Regiment 200, the 22nd Territorial Rifle Corps and The 8th Estonian Rifle Corpsin the Red Army. Simply because it's going to be easier to put everythin in context. And then once we have enough sourced material for each unit, it would make sense to spread out new articles about each. Please let me know if there are any objections to the suggestion. The first thing to do would be sorting it out according to the chronology providing historical context as it goes...Thanks!--Termer 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: "Selection of insignias issued to the Estonian Waffen Grenadier conscripts" is fake. And it looks like a fake too even on the photograph, therefore the image should be removed and deleted from Commons I'd suggest. Sources like "Estonian Vikings" by Richard Landwehr cite clearly that in general officially any national insignia was not issued. Some of the Estonians though did it on their own, added Estonian national insignia to the uniforms, mostly in 1944 when the Germans didn't care as much any more. --Termer 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, are you intending to rename this article to something like Estonian National Army Units in WWII? If so, it will be contested, since this article is specifically about the 20th division. I suggest you create a new article rather than modify this one Martintg 12:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
PS, those insignias are real enough, see here: [1] Martintg 12:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martintg

OK, thanks for clarifying... if this article is supposed to be about the 20th division then it should be written about it. Currently there is "Narwa Regiment" mixed in. The fact is, when Battalion Narwa returned to Estonia in March 1944 it was reformed, it ceased to exist becouse of the general conscription call-up and a newly formed Waffen-Füsilier-Battalion der SS was the one that joined the 20th division. So currently everything is mixed together and it's not clear at all that the article is about the 20th division.

regarding the image you provided for ref, it further illustrates the fact that Estonian national insignia (I.m talking about insignia of the Republic of Estonia) was not used and/or officially provided for those troops. Since "real enough" isn't good enough for an encyclopedia, I'm going to remove the image from this article. Please have it deleted from commons whoever has uploaded it...thanks!--Termer 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. regarding rewrapping this article, then it's going to be structured around the 20th division, and all the rest like Narwa etc are going to need their own articles and then later on, one general story about, something like Estonian National Army Units in WWII is going to be made. How about that as a plan?--Termer 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds okay, though I think mention of the identity of the earlier units that were merged into the 20th should be mentioned. Of course these units should have seperate articles. In regard to the insignia, the tri-colour was used, although I have not seen the one with three lions. As for the proposed article Estonian National Army Units in WWII, I think some thought needs to be given on the title, since during WWII there was no actual Estonian National Army in existence since the Soviets disbanded the army and arrested many of the general staff in 1940. Perhaps Estonian Military Units in WWII may be a better title. Martintg 00:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point Martintg National Army can sound like it was the army of the state. Estonian Military Units should be much more clear what it's all about. Regarding the units that were merged into the 20th, I've laid it out, further work is needed of course. the tri-colour insignia, in case anybody can dig out an authentic photo from the era that would be another story than using photos of home made fake labels on WP.--Termer 06:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, ruffed out the header according to the title. Further work is needed of course to make the whole article about the 20th division . Termer 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

formation here for safe keeping[edit]

Formation of the Division[edit]

The 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) was formed in Spring 1944 from various Estonian units and new conscripts that were mobilized after the general conscription call up.

Date Formation Formed from
March 31 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Artillery Regiment 4th

Battalion

Flag Schutzstaffel.svg Men from the SS Beneschau

artillery school

April 4 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Artillery Regiment staff and

2nd and 3rd Battalion

Flag Schutzstaffel.svg 53rd SS-Artillery Battalion, and conscripts.
April 20divss.gif Regiment "Tallinn" the Spring 1944 conscripts
April 20divss.gif 1st Border Defence Regiment the Spring 1944 conscripts
April 20divss.gif 2nd Border Defence Regiment the Spring 1944 conscripts
April 20divss.gif 3rd Border Defence Regiment the Spring 1944 conscripts
April 20divss.gif 4th Border Defence Regiment the Spring 1944 conscripts
April 20divss.gif 5th Border Defence Regiment the Spring 1944 conscripts
April 20divss.gif 6th Border Defence Regiment the Spring 1944 conscripts
April 20divss.gif Reserve regiment of the Border

Defence Regiments

the Spring 1944 conscripts
April 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Artillery Regiment I Battalion Flag Schutzstaffel.svg 53rd SS-Artillery Battalion
April 13 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Signals Battalion Flag Schutzstaffel.svg 20th SS-Signals Company and conscripts.
April 14 1944 20divss.gif 45th Waffen-Grenadier Regiment 2nd

Battalion brought to full strength

Balkenkreuz.svg Border Defence Regiment “Reval”

1st Battalion

April 18 1944 –

beginning of May 1944

20divss.gif 46th Waffen-Grenadier Regiment 3rd

Battalion

Balkenkreuz.svg Wehrmacht 660th Eastern Battalion and conscripts.
April 18 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Volunteer Division Fusilier

Battalion (single infantry battalion)

Flag Schutzstaffel.svg Former SS-Panzer Division “Wiking”

Battalion "Narwa" and conscripts.

April 24 1944 20divss.gif 47th Waffen-Grenadier Regiment 1st

Battalion

Balkenkreuz.svg Former Wehrmacht’s 659th Eastern

Battalion and conscripts.

April 24 1944 20divss.gif 47th Waffen-Grenadier Regiment 2nd

Battalion

Balkenkreuz.svg Former Wehrmacht’s 658th Eastern

Battalion and conscripts.

May 3 1944 – July 10 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Anti-tank Battalion Flag Schutzstaffel.svg 14th Company (Anti-tank) as the 1st

company of the battalion of the 45th SS-Regiment and conscripts.

April 16 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Transport Company
April 16 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Division 1st Re-supply

Transport Company

May 16 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Division rear headquarters
April 16 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Maintenance Company
May 3 1944 20divss.gif The new 14th (Anti-tank) Company

of 45th Waffen-Grenadier Regiment

Balkenkreuz.svg The Anti-tank Platoon of the Division

and conscripts.

May 4 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Light Artillery Re-supply

Convoy

Flag Schutzstaffel.svg Previously under the command of 20th

SS Anti-aircraft Battalion

May 8 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Division 1st Motorised

Medical Company

Flag Schutzstaffel.svg 20th SS-Medical Company and conscripts.
May 8 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Division 2nd Medical

Company

Flag Schutzstaffel.svg 20th SS-Medical Company 1st Platoon

and conscripts.

May 15 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Division 2nd Re-supply

Transport Company

Formed from men from the field reserve

battalion

May 17 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Division Rear Company Flag Schutzstaffel.svg Formed of 46th SS-Grenadier Regiment

3rd Battalion troops

June 1 1944–13 July 1944 20divss.gif 20th Waffen-Division Engineer Battalion Flag Schutzstaffel.svg 20th SS-Division 3rd Engineer Company

and conscripts.

August 1944 20divss.gif 45th Waffen-Grenadier Regiment 3.

Battalion

Suomen Puolustusvoimien tornileijona.svg Finnish Infantry Regiment 200

[1][2]

Why exactly were those facts removed from the article again?--Termer (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

While interesting this is nothing bit a list a does nothing to enhance the article, it should be changed into prose --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that it does nothing to enhance the article, I find detail like this quite interesting. Given the detail, setting it to prose is not optimal. Perhaps it could be set up as some kind of a collapsible table if the issue is visual style? Martintg (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how and why should be this changed into prose? It's pretty clear overview and dry facts about what kind of units there were before and into what were those reformed once they were merged with the division. So if this was put into prose, it would look like "the cadets from the SS Beneschau artillery school were formed into 20th Waffen-Artillery Regiment 4th Battalion of the division in March 31 1944....SS-Panzer Division "Wiking" Battalion "Narwa" was reformed as the 20th Waffen-Volunteer Division Fusilier Battalion and included into the division" etc and that should say so about 40 times for each unit?
Also there are other problems that have sneaked into the article. For example: "Branch of the Waffen SS" uses the insignia of SS in the infobox. That is misleading. Since the Estonian division was SS only nominally. The members of division didn't take the oath to Hitler and were not allowed to wear the insignia unlike the regular Waffen SS units. Those facts that made it clear how the division differed from regular waffen ss were removed by you [2]Why? Also, you say that "estonia in wwii that has nothing to do with article" and remove the whole section [3]? How come it has nothing to do with estonia in wwii since the head of the Estonian resistance movement green lighted the general conscription call and the whole idea of the division and concentrating all the Estonian units back to Estonia was attempted recreation of the Estonian Army in hopes of restoring the independence of the country. All that was also clearly spelled out by the sources you have removed. So again, what exactly are you after here and why do you keep removing sources and facts from the article, Jim Sweeney?--Termer (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. Remember this article is about the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) Estonia in World War II has its own article.
  2. This comment shows they were part of the Waffen SS = According to Andrew Mollo, a British authority on the SS the Estonian SS were very different from other SS units: Estonia had been occupied by the Red Army in 1940, the Estonians fought for the independence of their country and were brought under the SS umbrella against their will. [3] NOTE Thet were brought into the SS
  3. All Foreign Waffen SS units wore there own national insignia. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. the section on Estonia in World War II in this article gave the context to the formation of the division. Perhaps the section you removed was too long and detailed, OK, but it should be there in order to give the historical background to the subject.
  2. So why did you remove the comment by Andrew Mollo again?
  3. Incorrect! The Estonian Legion wore the SS-rune collar patches [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and the use of any national insignia was forbidden (even though there was attempts to use "home made" labels on sleeves sometimes). The special national collar patch was introduced for the 20th Division only. The table above is also very clear illustration of that.
Yes Waffen SS wore SS runes - the list above is just that a list it does not start with the formation of the Division but in March 1944 - If does not include the units pre March 1944 so it should not be included for that reason alone --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jim Sweeney, perhaps it's just me but I'm really getting confused, what were the reasons you think the historical context, the comment by Andrew Mollo had to be removed? And once the division was reformed in March, why was it again that such facts shouldn't be part of the article? The existence of the division was nominal only at first. Also, on January 23 1944 the 3rd Estonian Brigade was renamed into 20the Estonian SS Freiwillige Devision, and it became the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS only on May 26. 1944. [13].

The morrow comment belongs in the Estonia in WW II but put it back if you want - We use the final name for the SS Divisions at the end of the war other wise we would end up with numerous stub articles the list above in not encyclopaedic and adds nothing to the article . Glad to see you now agree the 3 Estonian Brigade was used in forming the division --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The 3 Estonian Brigade was used to form the 20th Volunteer Division and that was a division nominally only. The 20th Volunteer Division was reformed, sent to Estonia and after including the Spring 1944 conscripts, it became the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS on May 26. 1944. Therefore, the 20th Estonian SS Volunteer Division = 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade and all relevant facts belong to the appropriate article. The 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS however is a separate chapter that was formed according to the table above.--Termer (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
PS. If does not include the units pre March 1944?? What are you talking about? The very first Estonian unit is included. It was the SS-Panzer Division “Wiking” Battalion "Narwa" the core of the original Estonian Legion that was reformed into the 20th Waffen-Volunteer Division Fusilier Battalion (single infantry battalion) on April 18 1944. You're not suggesting that because the first unit on the list is called the '20th Waffen-Artillery Regiment 4th Battalion' it means that there must have been 3 previous Artillery Regiment Battalions in the Division? Sorry, but the number 4 of the Battalion in the Artillery Regiment has nothing to do with "units pre March 1944".--Termer (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

July 6[edit]

Why is July 6 marked as the anniversary of the division? I haven't heard anything happened on July 6. DJ Sturm (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Some newspaper reports indicate veterans hold annual reunions on that date. Martintg (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, days that veterans celebrate are January 24 (day of forming the division), February 24 (Anniversary of the Estonian Republic) and in the last week of July there is always reunion on the Blue Hills to remember the Battle of Tannenberg Line. Maybe July 6 is some anniversary of Latvian or Lithuanian Waffen-SS veterans. DJ Sturm (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

axishistory.com[edit]

recently axishistory.com has been used to overhaul this article and most of the published books used for ref previously have been removed for some reason. I don't think that axishistory.com is a WP:RS exactly, especially compared to the books that were used previously. The main thing is the claim that the Division was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade". The connection was only nominal since the Estonian division was formed out of general conscription call in Estonia unlike the Brigade. Also, the brigade was scattered all over the Eastern front and none of the soldiers were fighting in the territory of Estonia. Unlike after the formation of the division when all those units in the brigade were returned to Estonia and reformed. In any case it's misleading to say that the Division was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade". After all there where what, about 5000 men in the brigade but about up to 70.000 in the division after the conscription call.--Termer (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A cadre is exactly that a group that a military formation is built upon, I think 70,000 is a bit of an exaggeration no division number that many men --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Its also mentioned here http://axis101.bizland.com/EstonianFeldpost1.htm and page 34 of The Waffen - SS volume 3

By Gordon Williamson and Stephen Andrew --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the point, the Division was built upon the general conscription call in Estonia not "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade" that was scattered around all over the Eastern front at the time. About 40.000 were conscripted, perhaps not all the guys were technically included into the division but still. The point remains that Division was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade" is a very strange statement. There are a number of books published on the subject that are much more reliable than the web sites you have used. So at one point I think the sources need to be replaced.--Termer (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PS.Well, the table above you have removed from the article - gives the reader much clearer overview how the division was formed exactly instead of the misleading statements given by the sources you have used. So only that would be a reason good enough to restore the table above. So that the reader could decide how much the Division was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade" exactly once someone want's to claim so.--Termer (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK here are the numbers and the story of the division by: Misiunas, Romuald; Rein Taagepera (1993). The Baltic States, Years of Dependence, 1940-1990. University of California Press. p. 60. ISBN 0520082281. 

In Estonia, the pre-war Prime minister Uluots switched his stand on mobilization in Febrary 1944 when the Soviet Army reached the Estonian border. At the time the Estonian units under German control had about 14,000 men. Counting on a German debacle, Uluots considered it imperative to have large numbers of Estonians armed, through any means...Uluts even managed to tell it to the nation through the german-controlled radio: Estonian troops on Estonian soli have " a significance much wider than what I could and would be able to disclose here". The nation undrestood and responded. 38,000 registered ..Six border-defense regiments were formed, headed by Estonian officers, and the SS Division received reinforcements, bringing the total of Estonian units up to 50,000 or 60,00 men. During the whole period at least 70,000 Estonian joined the German army, more than 10,000 may have died in action...about 10,000 reached the West after the war ended.


PS. back to "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade", I admit there are some contradictions there between the sources. The fact is the brigade was renamed into division but according to the German Stammtafeln [14] the first units joining the Division were the men from the artillery school + the Border Guard Regiments, not from the former Brigade. At the same time some sources do not include the Border Guard Regiments within the Division. So it's a matter of either following the Stammtafeln or the other sources. Also some sources say that there were plans to form a second Estonian division out of the Border Guard Regiments, but the plans were never realized. So it all comes down to were the Border Guard Regiments part of the Division and the first to join it like the German Stammtafeln says or not.--Termer (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok the link you provided here [15] details the Reorganisation of the division from March 1944, which started with the 4th Battalion of the Artillery Regiment, to have a 4th Battalion you must have 1st , 3nd and 3rd battalions ? The 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade was formed in December 1943, from the Estonian Legion which was formed on 28 August 1942. Also if you follow the link fron the first commander Franz Augsberger you will see he was the commander of the 3 Estonian Brigade and its mentioned in his article how it progressed to division status. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, we can settle this as a different interpretation of a technicality perhaps. The way I've seen this, the Brigade was simply renamed Division at first and it was just nominal. However, once the Division was actually formed, the units of the former brigade were returned to Estonia and reformed (like you put it Reorganisation) into the division along with the conscripts. There is another thing though. Which probably is also just a technicality: Estonian Legion has been most often used as an umbrella term for Battalion Narwa (SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Bataillon Narwa), and later also the 3rd Estonian Brigade. In January 1944 the 3rd Brigade was renamed the 20the Division and replaced the Estonian Legion which thus ceased to exist.[16].--Termer (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, sorry, I have to take this back. I was right all along, The fact is 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS was born on May. 26 1944. The unit name for the renamed Brigade was the '20th Estonian volunteer Division' (20the Estonian SS Freiwillige Devision) that was called so on January 23. 1944. Therefore it' factually incorrect to say that the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade". In fact the 20th volunteer division of the SS was formed "around a cadre of the 3 Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade". And the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS was the result of the Reorganisation of the volunteer division in Estonia that thereafter, on May 26 became the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian)[17].--Termer (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

'Nazi collaborators' category[edit]

Talk duplicated in Talk:3rd_Estonian_SS_Volunteer_Brigade#'Nazi collaborators' category. Timurite (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Klooga incident[edit]

From User talk:Vihelik: Your claim based on a single sentence (...das mit Hilfe von Angehörigen der 20. Waffen-SS Division unter dem Befehl des Kommandeurs der Ausbildungs- und Ersatzeinheiten, Georg Ahlemann, abgeriegelt wurde) from the lone source you provide is simply incorrect. Don't you think the Soviets wouldn't have used this for their propaganda if it were true? The fact remains that after interrogating the surviving witnesses even the Soviet authorities, who did their utmost to demonize the 20. Division, never accused any members of the Estonian Division in any of the crimes committed at the Klooga concentration camp, because they simply weren't present. However, accounts abound of how the Estonian conscripts arrested the German officers who were in charge of the training camp. How could Ahlemann be in two places at the same time, under arrest at the training camp by his own soldiers, and providing security at the concentration camp? What your precious court records (that you probably have not seen with your own eyes) contain is most likely the orders how the liquidation was supposed to have taken place (just a conjecture;).--Vihelik (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. I did not make any claims. I inserted information from a reliable source. Birn is a well established historian on the German occupation and Estonian collaboration (sic!). In her chapter on Klooga she gives as reference material collected by German prosecutors against Ahlemann. This material is contradictory to the version of events given in your contribution.
  2. The version you added is based on an article by a relatively unknown author in a Estonian-language cultural magazine, that you failed to cite properly.
  3. The sentence I added made no allegations whatsoever but merely stated that the said unit was assisting. That's NPOV and no malevolent and undocumented claim.
As it is not up to me to check sources myself - that would be OR - and your sources are a) outdated by my sources, b) inaccessible for non-Estonian-speakers and c) liable for POV, I would suggest you revert to my original sentence. Especially, as it would be out of proportion to elaborate on the subject in the article and discuss the incident in the article on Klooga concentration camp. Good Friday --Dodo19 (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
A cultural magazine is a respectable place to publish humanitarian research. The paper appears to be highly regarded by historians, for instance this decision by the Estonian Parliament. It is not outdated by Birn, as she does not cite it, they are parrallel in time. And Västrik's work is a detailed analysis of the event in question, whereas it is merely a detail in Birn's much more general work. All this said, I have not actually read Västrik's paper and I don't know which documents he uses. If it were official documents, the detail of the work outweighs Birn's statement. If it is based on memoirs, it has smaller weight. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Birn is using material provided by Västrik - whom she thanks in the notes. I have not read the article in Vikerkaar, either, since I do not read Estonian, therefore it could say anything. Meanwhile, Birn has published her findings in German and English, both languages I do read - and probably many other users here know at least some English. Birn is using German records, and I assume that much of the material provided by Västrik is also in German. Anyway, I will try to get hold of the English version of Estonia 1940-1945, hopefully it will be clearer on the subject, but I doubt it. The internet version of the conclusion says, it is not known who did the shooting. I will therefore change the passage in the article accordingly. --Dodo19 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted a weird insertion of a false quote from Birn - I have the article in front of me and the quote as such does not exist. It had also marked Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity as a source - which actually stated:

The 287th was on duty at the Klooga camp in September 1944, when the last surviving prisoners were killed. It is not clear whether the actual killings were carried out by German SS guards, by members of a reserve unit of the Estonian SS, or by members of the 287th. It is however clear that the 287th was actively involved in gathering together the prisoners, guarding them, and escorting them to their death. The unit was withdrawn to Germany and most of its men were sent to the 20th Estonian SS Division

http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/pdf/conclusions_en_1941-1944.pdf

I hope this clears up the confusion now. 20th was not at Klooga, nor is it clear that men of 287th were involved in killing - like it has been said, their lieutenant Egon Valter was arrested because the men refused to participate in the killing:

There was a rebellion of Estonian soldiers at Klooga. Used as an internment camp for Jews by the Germans, on September 19 the evacuating Germans had a special German unit kill the remaining Jews in the camp. The Estonians strongly protested this action. The protest was delivered by Lt. Egon Valter to the regimental commander Ahlemann who tore Valter’s Iron Cross ribbon from his tunic, demoted him to private and had him jailed. Infuriated, the Estonians broke into the armoury and armed themselves, released Valter and jailed Ahlemann.

http://www.eesti.ca/printarticle.php?id=2334

--Sander Säde 06:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah - I've spotted the source of the confusion. The 20th Estonian SS Division Reserve Training Regiment was stationed near Klooga - and Egon Valter was their lieutenant:
19. septembril 1944 teatas Klooga laagri ülem SS-Untersturmführer Wilhelm Werle ülesrivistatud laagrile, et laager evakueeritakse. Küll aga ei teatanud ta laagrit valvanud 3.kompanii meestele, et kõigi laagriasukate jaoks transport puudub ja kõige ohtlikumad Reichi vastased likvideeritakse. Kloogale saabus SD erikomando, mis alustas laagri lähedal metsas hukkamisi. Eestlased olid sellisest käitumisest jahmunud ja teatasid sellest lähedal asunud Eesti 20.SS-Diviisi väljaõppelaagrisse. Väljaõppelaagrist läks leitnant Egon Valter protestiga SS-Sturmbannführer Georg Ahlemanni jutule. Viimane vihastas eestlaste sekkumise üle, rebis Valteri rinnalt Raudristi lindi ja vahistas leitnandi. Nüüd aga vihastusid eestlased, nad murdsid sisse relvalattu ja relvastusid. Valter vabastati ja vahistati hoopis Ahlemann. Võim Kloogal läks täielikult eestlaste kätte. Admiral Pitka palvel sakslane hiljem siiski vabastati. Kuigi 287.politseipataljoni mehed hukkamistest osa ei võtnud, mõisteti peale sõda 38 pataljoni meest selles süüdistatuna pikaks ajaks vangi.

http://www.eestileegion.com/index.php?categoryid=122

Egon Valter was asked by the Estonian camp guards to help to stop the murders. He went to talk with Ahlemann, who got pissed, tore the Iron Cross from his chest and arrested him. In return, Estonians (I presume, from both 20th and 287th) "broke into the armoury and armed themselves, released Valter and jailed Ahlemann.". Later Ahlemann was released as ordered by admiral Pitka. "Although the soldiers of the 287th Battalion did not participate in executions, after the war 38 men were accused of it and jailed for a long time"
--Sander Säde 06:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Dodo19 keeps pushing a point that is based on a single sentence from a squib-level academic paper by Birn[18], p.191. I have one big problem with Birn's paper and another huge one. The big problems are: 1. Many sloppy mistakes; e.g., Hapsaluu pro Haapsalu, Lake Peipu pro Lake Peipsi/Peipus, Omakaistse pro Omakaitse, etc.). 2. Incorrect facts; e.g., Kaitseliit was not formed in reaction to the communist Putsch in 1924, it was formed in 1918. 3. Misleading statements; e.g., on p.187 Birn mentions the 921 Estonian Jews who were killed, and then adds that 5,400 Jews living in Ingermanland were able to escape. What!? The Ingermanland she refers to was part of the Leningrad oblast in Russia, the Estonian Ingermanland reached bearly a few kilometres across the Narwa River and had NO Jewish population. I stop here with the examples of mistakes.
The huge shortcoming of Birn’s paper is its almost exclusive reliance on German language primary sources that she takes at their face value by quoting them with no or very little interpretation. For example, from her German sources she quotes a figure 1,818 as the number Estonian victims of Soviet terror. What!? What about the 33,000 young men who were “mobilized” and sent to forced labor camps in Russia where 10,000 of them perished? 12,000 who were deported on 14 June 1941, most of whom perished? Execution of Estonian diplomats and officers at the onset of the war? During the first year of Soviet rule nearly 54,000 Estonian citizens were executed, deported or mobilized into the Red Army. By her own admission (cf. footnote 118 on p.197) Birn did not bother to use Estonian sources to verify her figure (1,818 versus 54,000!). There are literally hundreds of academic papers and books written on the subject, she could have just searched the internet.
Back to the liquidation of Klooga KZCamp by units of the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) and (presumably) the Schutzmannschaftsbataillon of the KdS, a quote from p.191 in Birn’s paper. According to Birn’s Footnote 64, she got this information from Georg Ahlemann’s post-war indictment in West Germany. Didn’t it cross her mind that this testimony came from an accused war criminal trying to shirk responsibility? Why on earth did she not corroborate this “testimony” with a large number of published materials from the survivors of the Klooga massacre, published in Estonia and Russia during the Soviet era, that only speak of Germans carrying out the executions? Overreliance on primary materials in German, anyone see a pattern here? (Reminder: primary sources may not be used for factual evidence in Wikipedia. By extension, mere reprints of primary sources without an accompanying scientific analysis are still just primary sources. Birn does not offer any interpretation, or cross-references. Period.)
Birn’s paper would not bad if it had been published as a squib; i.e., food for thought for further investigation. Unfortunately, published as it is, it reminds one of American history writing were all the encounters between Indians and the US Army are described only from the white perspective. Dodo19, unfortunately, is treating the Estonian “aborigines” in a similar manner - one sentence in a squib by a German historians is more valuable than magnitudes more historical documents published in languages other that German. Metaphorically, he just keeps insisting that everyone else disprove that hippos are not avian, because he has seen a publication where hippos fly.--Vihelik (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
All of the above sources are outdated by Riho Västrik, Meelis Maripuu (2006). "Vaivara concentration camp". in Toomas Hiio, Meelis Maripuu, & Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity, which presents a scrutinised analysis of all available testimonies of the survivors of the camp, Estonian Waffen-SS soldiers and officers in the units stationed there and Ahlemann himself. He, by the way, first claimed that the unit did not participate in the execution. In a later statement, he denied being at the camp at the time (which is false, according to an official diary). Altogether, although some survivors blame the Estonian unit, most of the evidence does not support that version. The Soviet court of war crimes prosecuted the captured Estonians who had been present at the camp for war crimes, failing to provide any solid evidence against them. The most common version remains that a special German task unit was trucked to the camp early in the morning, which performed the executions. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I follow your rant, you are not convinced by peer-reviewed academic publications. Fine. I agree, Estonian SS veterans know best what happened. Unfortunately, there is a conflict of interest about what they will tell us. So, you chose to belief the SS veterans as they happen to speak your language, while I choose to trust German and English sources, as I speak those languages. Interestingly, your own government did not go so far as to exclude any responsibility, simply stating, that they were unable to find out who did the shooting. Well, I will be back to those outlandish publications then.--Dodo19 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Own government? Methinks you haven't bothered to click on a link leading to Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. --Sander Säde 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did. And I did not notice any historians among this illustrious group. --Dodo19 (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Spoken like a true representative of a master race, kudos! After all, what weight do the testimonies of a bunch of Jewish and Russian survivors carry against the word of a single Aryan officer, war criminal or not? These silly survivors, they should have had their accounts translated into German. Also, all these books and articles in Estonian and Russian truly pale in comparison to your reference to a single sentence written in a Germanic language.
"Rant"? "Illustrious" group? You do have a brilliant sense of sarcasm.
On a more serious note, how can you exclude evidence based on language? Some new Wikipedia policy I am not aware of? Frankly, your attitude of superiority is offensive.--Vihelik (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
One more thing. You blame others for relying on accounts by SS veterans. Mind my pointing out that your only reference is based on the words of an SS officer. Conflict of interest? What about Ahlemann trying to shift blame? His testimony was given during his trial. --Vihelik (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You want to be taken serious, act seriously. This is an English-language project, so sources should be in English - it's simply courtesy, for a lot of people out there do speak neither Estonian nor Russian. How would you like some Hebrew or Yiddish publications cited in the article? Alas, it would be nice to have some real sources in the article anyway, instead of private home pages and veterans blogs. I am happy to discuss facts, but I am less inclined to suffer your inferiority complex much longer. --Dodo19 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dodo19, you are talking absolute nonsense. The "Vaivara concentration camp" article I just cited is in English, has nothing to do with the Estonian government and analyses all available documents on the subject at hand, including Ahlemann's two testimonies. In the first of them, he denied his unit taking part of the executions (which, I assume, does not exclude providing guards for the perimetre of the camp). In the second time, he denied ever being present at the camp that day (which was a lie, as proven by an official diary). Birn fails to criticise her only source. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. Why don't you simply quote the relevant paragraph then? All I got here is the single sentence from the conclusion, quoted above. --Dodo19 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Wikipedia does not require sources to be in English - there is no such guideline or recommendation (see WP:RS). You can always use Google Translate, if you have problems with understanding sources. Also, believing a a single sentence from a second-rate study over a clearly spelled out description in a work of international commission with highly notable members and a multitude of historians in their disposal - and the work is in English... I think it speaks for itself. --Sander Säde 05:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
And the reviews do so too. Unfortunately Google translations are not exactly first rate either. Again, if it is clearly spelled out in English, quote it, with Chapter and Verse preferably. If it is in Estonian, same thing. --Dodo19 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Which part do you want? The analysis of the executioners of Klooga covers a page in an A4 format book. Typing in all of that would take several hours so please be specific. And the authors do not analyse Ahlemann as the only witness but just as two of many testimonies in the case. The authors start the chapter by stating that the most common version is that the executions were performed by a special German task force was trucked in early in the morning. They continue with presenting a number of testimonies and remain inconclusive. The final paragraph describes the Soviet court cases against the Estonians serving in the camp, which presented no further evidence against them. -- Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
We don't establish the facts here, we simply present them. So anything that is referring to the involvement of Ahlemann and the recruits is relevant here. My understanding is, that they might have been used for guarding the perimeter. So that's were we should start. If there is anything on the revolt, that might be interesting too.--Dodo19 (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Okey, here is how the chapter "Who participated in the executions?" starts: "The most widespread opinion is that the inmates were executed byt the team brought to the site in a truck, but also the team of Estonian guards and the members of the 20th reserve and tranining regiment of the Waffen-SS Estonian units have been suspected. Georg Ahlemann prepared a unit consisting of 60-70 members of the Estonian Waffen-SS, and some German NCOs to guard the inmates and surround the camp. In the afternoon of the execution day, Ahlemann was in the camp.<citation to the indictment against Ahlemann at the Prosecutor's office in Cologne, 1974> In later interrogations, Ahlemann denied his presence in the camp and any participation in the executions.<citation to a document at the Central Office of the Justizverwaltungen, 1966> Jewish victims testified about the arrival of a special unit from Tallinn and also confirmed the participation of Estonian Waffen-SS personnel in encirclement of the camp.<citation to Ahlemann's file in a prosecutor's office in Tel Aviv>" The following paras describe the testimonies of the Estonian soldiers and officers to the NKGB claiming they guarded the camp all day while the inmates were taken to the execution site by German soldiers. No hint on a revolt. //Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So what's the big deal? That's more or less what Birn states too: The shooters were brought in from outside, the Estonian police and Waffen-SS guarded the perimeters. --Dodo19 (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't act naive. You've been trying to insert claims on an Estonian Waffen-SS unit committing the execution. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I don't. I wrote, that they assisted, that's something differed. --Dodo19 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Not here you did not. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I did not, I reverted a unjustified revert of an edit by an IP which introduced referenced text from another wikipedia article. And you might have noticed, that I did not revert Sanders edit, when he claimed that the text was not supported by the reference given. --Dodo19 (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying you disagreed with the text but reinserted it anyway because it had been unjustly reverted? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is, I reverted the deletion of referenced material by Termer. Termer was claiming the material did not relate to the division. As the division was explicitly mentioned in the text, I reverted it, assuming the quote to be correct, as it corresponds with a passage in the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust in Estonia. Then Sander Säde removed the text again, claiming it was not supported by the reference given. Until I get a chance to check out the references, I will leave it at this. --Dodo19 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Which references do you still need to check out? Both the 1999 report by the History Commission and Birn are outdated by the "Vaivara concentration camp" 2006 article, which I have quoted enough. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It's simply about verification. You are saying it's written there, as did the IP. Sander says the IP is wrong. Now I have to look myself in order to know, if it is true or not. Meanwhile, I have read Anton Weiss Wendt's article which sheds some light on the report you quoted. And then there is Birn's latest book, that was also published in 2006. History is a house of mirrors, I am afraid to say. --Dodo19 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The IP claimed, the unit committed the executions, which was deliberately false.
Re: History is a house of mirrors: True. It is our job to decide, which mirrors are mainstream and which are fringe. This review might help (with Google translation, though). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, unfortunately machines are not into linguistic nitty-gritty details, so I only get the half which is not Googlish. From what I understand, Ekspress is not amused. I can understand.
If the IP gave a false reference, as Sander claims, I will find out later this morning.
With regard to mainstream and fringe, I am afraid, Estonia is not very high on the agenda. --Dodo19 (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So you are saying that you re-insered a quote from IP (which I thought was you?) without even possibility to check if it was correct?! Oh, my. I suggest in the future, if you edit such controversial topics, you'll avoid such actions.

You could have asked me for the article - I could have sent you the PDF in seconds. The exact, non-bungled source from Birn is "The final acts of liquidating the camps, such as Klooga, which involved the mass-shooting of roughly 2,000 prisoners, were committed by Estonians under German command, that is by units of the 20.SS-Division and (presumably) the Schutzmannschaftsbataillon of the KdS.64"

Weiss-Wend is very amusing. He cherry-picks sources and facts that suit his sensationalism, skipping both aforementioned Birn article and book and the definite work about the era, “Estonia 1940–1945”. He attacks the Commission, "The Commission was convened in 1998, and was the first such body in the Baltic, as has been emphasized. The date is significant, as Estonia was entering into talks with the EU and NATO regarding membership in these two organizations.", while he must have known that the idea for the Commission started even before 1994. The final push to start the Commission was from Andrew Baker and Nicholas Lane of the American Jewish Committee in spring 1998. [19]

Not to mention, Estonia became a member of NATO in 2004 and Commission published its findings in 2006...

He goes on, "Of the six international members of the Commission only three were historians, and none of them was an expert on either Soviet or Nazi policies. It was an open secret that they were selected on the basis of their ‘friendliness’ towards Estonia.", making it sound like there were Estonian members, while in fact there were only six members and Max Jakobson as the chairman. Three of the members are Jews, including Jakobson - and many had no special "‘friendliness’ towards Estonia".

See also another review of Weiss-Wend's book, this one by a German historian Olaf Mertelsmann - also, an interesting (if irrelevant to the current topic) paper by him here.

--Sander Säde 07:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking seems to be your national pastime. The quote is correct with the exception that camps, such as Klooga, was substituted with Klooga concentration camp. The blame is with you, as you were claiming it failed verification. It is not our job to verify or falsify the 'content of a reference, only to check whether the quoted text is correct. If you don't agree with what she writes, you are free to use other sources, which say so. As it happens, Birn did not repeat the allegations in her more recent publications, thus there is no dispute here.

As with regard to Weiss-Wendt, he is free to express his own views. If you have a problem with his methodology, write a review, get it published. But make sure you write his name correctly. --Dodo19 (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. I would love to live in Florida, but sadly I am not.

And as it happens, you presented the text as a direct quote - a quote, which did not exist in the paper, I made an exact search. Therefore, no dice. I found the actual paragraph later - it all would have been avoided if you wouldn't have inserted text you were unable to verify. Please avoid such actions in the future. --Sander Säde 12:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
First, I did not insert the text, I merely reverted it's deletion by Termer.
Second, YOU deleted the text again, claiming, it was not in the article. ("failed verification - no such quote from Birn'' and weird insertion of a false quote from Birn - I have the article in front of me and the quote as such does not exist - your words, not mine).
Third, the text you found later, was always were it said it was: p. 191 in Birn's 2001 article.
Four, you were sitting on the article all the time and falsely accused others of wrongdoing.
I'd say, YOU are the one who should avoid such actions in the future. Good Day, --Dodo19 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The text, which you presented as a quote in your revert, was not in the article. That is undeniable. And you reverted it without even having the source, as it came out. So what exactly was the reason to restore the text which had been deleted by Termer, with comment "the division is explicitly mentioned"? Because, despite the possibility to verify the source, you felt it was right?! --Sander Säde 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you try a Google translation? Maybe it will help you understand. The reason Termer gave was obviously a false one, which is what I meant with the division is explicitly mentioned. OR DO YOU DENY THIS FACT? The quote from the article had a reference which falls under WP:RS. Any problem with that? AND YOU LIED ABOUT THE QUOTE NOT BEING THERE! --Dodo19 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Except the quote was not there. Direct quote is author's text without changes. The anon had changed the quote, therefore the article did not have the quote. And if you insist once more that I have lied, I will report you for incivility. --Sander Säde 15:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Fine, do so!--Dodo19 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Quote or no quote, that's beside the point, Birn made a mistake anyway. The point is that a revert of a deletion is still an insertion of text and an editor is responsible for the material he reinserts. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
To the contrary, I am not responsible for other people's mistakes. I am only responsible to give the source when referring to other people's work. That's what references are for. Anything else would be plagiarism. So please make sure you give a source for anything you add, delete or change in any articles. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a clear contradiction between the sources and you are responsible for your deliberate failure to resolve that. And as you are clearly not stupid, this must have happened on some kind of purpose. //Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
And what's this? You should really go and find another hobby. --Dodo19 (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the mistake you keep reinserting. It would be wise of you to tell us now why. Otherwise we will have to draw our own conclusions. //Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Who says it's a mistake? --Dodo19 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, Birn claims, according to Ahlemanns testimony, the Estonian Waffen SS committed the execution. Estonia 1940-1945 goes into detail in Ahlemanns statements and says he denied the participation of his unit. So either Birn lied or made a mistake. I assume innocence and do not take Birn as a liar. //Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
YOU DID NOT EVEN READ THE REFERENCE YOU DELETED! Otherwise you wouldn't write such nonsense. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"Mit Hilfe" (With the help") implies knowing participation so that is false. You took a large step further, reinserting the claim on the unit committing the executions, which is a violation of OR. //Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You are jumping to conclusions without understanding anything. If you read the passage, you obviously did not understand it. Come back when you have done your homework. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I understand the source but you can always tell me what I am missing. //Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You ain't missing, you're adding. You're seeing stuff that ain't there. Simple as that. --Dodo19 (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you are the one reinserting a made up story of the unit commiting the execution. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of references[edit]

The removal of references that fall under WP:RS is vandalism.--Dodo19 (talk) 3:16 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Addition of references that do not support the statement is a violation of WP:V and, frankly, every common sense. //Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Meaning what? --Dodo19 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Meaning that a source that contradicts the statement its cited after does not belong there. //Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Meaning what? --Dodo19 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Meaning you cannot cite a source that does not support your claim in the article. If the statement and the source disagree, then either the statement should be changed to match the source. If that is impossible, which is the case here, the citation should be removed. Birn does not say that the 20th Waffen-SS unit guarded the camp and cannot be used to support such a statement. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

..., das mit Hilfe von Angehörigen der 20. Waffen-SS Division unter dem Befehl des Kommandeurs der Ausbildungs- und Ersatzeinheiten, Georg Ahlemann, abgeriegelt wurde. [..., which was sealed of with the assistance of members of the 20th Waffen-SS Division under the command of the commander od the training and replacement units, Georg Ahlemann.] (Birn 2008, p. 164)

Now where is your problem? --Dodo19 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the mismatch between this wikiarticle and Birn. There is essential difference between sealed off and provided guards. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
So it is not about sources at all. It's just about linguistics. Well, I am not sure if you are the right person to make such a call. You are confusing guarding the camp as such with cordoning it off during the executions. Technically it comes down to the same thing: 70 SS men put as sentries around the area. Nobody in, nobody out. Or what do you think they did there? BTW I told you I don't speak Googlish. Next time use the wiktionary, please. --Dodo19 (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
As I have reported earlier according to the Estonia 1940-1945 article, the duties of the unit remained the same on the day of the execution as they had been weeks before. Therefore it is false to talk about sealing off. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You wrote yourself on Tuesday, that Ahlemann had 60-70 recruits assigned for guarding the perimeter. Now you are telling me, they did not do anything different. So basically you are telling me, the SS recruits were guarding the camp all the time?
Anyway, Ahlemann's version is on the books, it's WP:RS, if there is a conflicting report, add it if you like, with the proper references. But don't interpret, don't assume, don't pretend you understand, and don't tell me what is right or wrong.--Dodo19 (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have done that already. The perimetre of the camp was guarded all the time, not just the day of the execution. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, why are you making such a fuss then, if the recruits from the Estonian division had been guarding the camp all the time?--Dodo19 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For the tenth time, if Birn says they "sealed off" the camp, her article cannot be used to support the statement of "providing guards" for the camp perimetre. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is saying, the recruits were involved in running the camp. Birn merely states, based on Ahlemann's testimony, that the 20th SS provided the manpower to make sure nobody escaped during the executions. And that's what it says in the article. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That is already your inpretation. I don't see why would we want to cite a cource that needs an interpretation to match the words in our wikiarticle while we can be happy with a source that matches it directly? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Now you lost me completely. I have no idea what you are talking about her.--17:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Our article says the men of the division provided guards for the camp. We have the Estonia 1940-1945 article, which talks about guarding duties in a loose way. Then we have Birn who talks about sealing off. Which one is the correct source of the statement in the current version? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah. The guards were not provided for the concentration camp as such, but only during its liquidation. At least, that is the version of events Ahlemann gave. It was standard procedure of the Einsatzgruppen to have local forces seal off the area so the killers did not have to worry about locals getting mixed up or prisoners escaping. This seems to have happened here to, with the death squad being brought in from Tallinn. And that is what Birn is referring to in her article. --Dodo19 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

seems to have happened? No other source supports such claims, in case it can't be WP:Verified, it should be excluded from the article.--Termer (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
PS. also, Dodo19 you're not suppose to misuse your rollback rights in an edit war like you've been doing here:[20],[21], [22].--Termer (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. It is properly documented, referenced and verified. Anything else would be OR.
  2. The removal of sourced material without proper justification,like this is vandalism. So I did not misuse by rollback rights.--Dodo19 (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. This is a claim by a single source not verified by anybody or anything else.
  2. using your rollback rights in an edit war against your editing colleagues is misuse. You'd loose the privilege if it got reported, so feel free to go and seek advice about it by yourself on any admin board if you can't take my word for it.--Termer (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
If you were right, that would mean I could delete most of the Estonian history on Wikipedia. Think about it - or consult WP:RS--Dodo19 (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I did think about it, just that it didn't make any sense what you just said.--Termer (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I've fully protected the article because of the current edit warring. Please discuss any proposed changes on this page and let me or any other admin know if you wish to make consensual edits to the article. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the article back to the version (April 17th) that seems the most stable before the current edit war. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Battalions 658 and 659[edit]

Battalions 658 and 659 were Eastern Battalions, not Police ones. That's a fact that I think everybody agrees with. DJ Sturm (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Michaelis has them down as Police in his 1994 book, but Ost-Bataillone in his 2000 and 2006 volumes. Apparently there was also a Ost-Bataillon 660 which was transferred together with the first two on 20 April 1944. --Dodo19 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).