Talk:German occupation of Estonia during World War II

Holocaust in Estonia 1941-1944

Is there a credible source available that cites the country where the 75% of Estonian Jews escaped to before German forces arrived? -BStarky 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think they left for some foreign country across the ocean? After all, they were Soviet citizens in the Soviet Union. Besides, which country would take Jewish refugees in 1940/1941? -- Petri Krohn 02:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizens of the Republic of Estonia, Jewish or otherwise, were commonly accepted by Sweden, for example. Finland and Sweden were common primary targets for refugees in wake of the occupations of Estonia; later, many of these refugees travelled further to Americas (there's a very active Estonian expatriate community in Toronto, for example), Australia and elsewhere. Digwuren 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Estonian expatriate community in Toronto and Jewish community in Toronto have no relationships whatsoever. RJ CG 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of sources on this. What is more controversial is how many Jews were brought to Estonian camps after this. According to Ilya Altman and Claudio Ingerflom, around 2,000 jews were killed in Estonia during the Holocaust (Ilya Altman & Claudio Ingerflom, Le Kremlin et L'Holocauste, 1933-2001 (afterword). In: Général Petrenko, Avant et après Auschwitz. Paris: Flammarion, 2002. p. 265. ISBN2-0821-0056-1. According to Maripuu, Meelis (2005), Zur sowjetischen Wahrnehmung der Juden in Estland in den Jahren 1944-1963, Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung, 54.1, 86-97, "almost all of the approximately 1000 Jews who remained in the country were executed by the German occupying authorities in 1941-1942, who also brought about 12 000 Jews to Estonia from elsewhere in Europe in 1942-1944.", which gives 13,000 at most. [1] says that "Out of the 1 000 Estonian Jews that remained in Estonia 963 were killed, according to the German commander of Special Commando 1A, Walter Stahlecker."... "Evgenia Gurin-Loov said in her book "Eesti juutide katastroof 1941. Holocaust of Estonian Jews 1941" (Tallinn 1994) that 929 were killed. In addition around 5 000 Central European and 2 000 Lithuanian Jews brought by the Nazis to Estonian camps." According to Birn, Ruth Bettina (2001), Collaboration with Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe: the Case of the Estonian Security Police. Contemporary European History 10.2, 181-198, "Approximately 1,000 Jewish Estonians stayed and were killed. Sandberger's own count is 921 persons killed." Where is the truth? Colchicum 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Kids, please stop and try to reach a compromise. The name Estonian Self-Administration is at least correct translation of Eesti Omavalitsus (haven't had a chance to check sources), but it is as clear, that it was a puppet government without any real power. So, compromise - name it Estonian Self-Administration, but make it clear it was a puppet of Nazis. DLX 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Denial of link between Monument of Lihula and Occupation of Estonia. =

Number of Estonian wikipedians repeatedly remove link to Monument of Lihula page, using factually dubious comments as "factually wrong" and denying link bweteen monument and Nazi collaborators. As monument's dedication to ones who collaborated with Germany's regime of the day is obvious (more than half of article on Monument consists of discussion of Estonian contribution into Waffen SS and article had been target of edit wars started by two of three recent editors of Occupation article, namely Digwuren and DLX), it heavy smells of POV. RJ CG 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Face it, your pet Nazis are not in that high regard as you hope. The monument does not honour "Nazi collaborators". It honours the Estonian soldiers previously not honoured because they fought on the "wrong side" -- through no wrongdoing of their own. Digwuren 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are small but vocal minority of Estonian contributors who keep themselves busy denying collaboration between Estonians and Nazi during WWII or (as in Monument of Lihula case) when link is impossible to deny, trying to minimize it. Good thing is, you guys do understand that Nazi collaboration is bad thing. Another good thing is, you do not understand that all your efforts are futile. Your only increase ppl's interest to the topic with your busy denialism. Keep up the good work :) RJ CG 17:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is denying anything. There were exactly 7 Estonians that have been facing trials for war crimes and collaborating with the Nazis. Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia. If you think those Estonians who were fighting against the Soviets during the WWII did care about the Nazi cause, you're mistaken. Estonians like most of the Eastern Europe were victims of the 2 superpowers , The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and only thing that mattered for many back then was, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Unfortunately after the one year of Soviet occupation that enemy of the enemy happened to be the German war-machine. Many used this, many chose not to and joined the Finnish army Finnish Infantry Regiment 200 to get a chance to fight against the Soviet Union. --Termer 09:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I found it funny that you deny your denialism in discussion about repeated removal of link between Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany article and article about monument honoring Nazi collaborators. Face it, all your noble freedomfighters WERE Nazi collaborators, even if history did not leave them another choice, which is completely different topic (and I may agree with you on that, if it is any consolation to you). BTW, history proved there was another way. Educate yourself on Polish resistance and AK. Back on "Occupation vs. Monument of Lihula" topic. You may have a point that those events are not connected if ones honoured by Monument were not result of occupation. That makes perfect paragraph in "Controversy" section of "Monument of Lihula" article :) RJ CG 12:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonia was the first country in the world that gave Jews cultural autonomy and once the Soviets took over the country, many Jewish people were deported to Siberia together with Estonians. So the first oppressor of Jews before the nazis arrived in Estonia was the Soviet Union. History is always more complicated than black and white...--Termer 09:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Several mistakes in single statement. 1st, your source does not mention Jewish cultural authonomy in interwar Estonia. I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you pasted the wrong link in the haste, as I'm aware of Jewish cultural autonomy in Estonia at this time. However, your source does mention that, despite being by far most educated ethnic group in interwar Estonia, Jews were not represented in government at all. Not a single Jewish public servant in whole country. 2nd, Jewish cultural autonomy was not the 1st in the world by far and could not be. Austro-Hungary gave cultural autonomy to Bukovina Jews in 1910, when Estonia was 2 gubernias of Russian Empire and swore unconditional allegiance to Russian Czars. RJ CG 12:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There were only about 5,000 Jews in interwar Estonia. It doesn't look really telling that they were not represented in the government (as if this would change anything). Colchicum 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And if one thinks that Estonian contributors are guilty because they are Estonians, obviously he is a Nazi himself. Colchicum 09:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I share thi sentiment fully but fail to see it's relevance to the problem we discuss. RJ CG 12:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then cool down a bit and start contributing verifiable content. E.g. it is not true that the Jews deported to the Soviet Union formed majority of Estonian holocaust survivors, as you claimed.Colchicum 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As to the Jews, look e.g. at

Berg, Eiki (1994). The Peculiarities of Jewish Settlement in Estonia. GeoJournal 33.4, 465-470.

Birn, Ruth Bettina (2001), Collaboration with Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe: the Case of the Estonian Security Police. Contemporary European History 10.2, 181-198.

Verschik, Anna (1999). The Yiddish language in Estonia: Past and present. Journal of Baltic Studies 30.2, 117-128.

Weiss-Wendt, Anton (1998). The Soviet Occupation of Estonia in 1940-41 and the Jews. Holocaust and Genocide Studies 12.2, 308-325.

Colchicum 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up an interesting fact about cultural autonomy in Austro-Hungary. It appears, Estonia was the 2nd in the World after all. Even though the very first in Austro-Hungary lasted only 4 years and was interrupted by the outbreak of the war. Regarding "Estonia was 2 gubernias of Russian Empire and swore unconditional allegiance to Russian Czars" then only one that was able to swore unconditional allegiance on behalf of Estonia were the Baltic Germans, Estonians didn't have any political rights back then.--Termer 16:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess this discussion does belong on another page. There were scores of "Jewish cultural autonomy" cases throughout the history, Estonian being neither 1st nor, AFAIK, last of them. If you want to discuss who exactly swore an allegiance to Russian Czar, I'm not sure there was a distinction in the eyes of Russian government. They kept track of religion, not of ethnic origin. And let not open the worm can here. RJ CG 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems Monument of Lihula would fit nicely into the Controversies section now. I'll see if I can find some sources to cite both sides...--Termer 07:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversies today

Please have this section rephrased in case you'd like to keep it. The statements are racist, speaking for "broader Russophone community" in Estonia would need some serious refs, and there is no bitter debate between Majority of Estonians and Jews.--Termer 15:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I kinda agree that section should be re-worked, I added "Russophone" statement to actually defuse the ethnic sound of section. Rift is largely between Estonian-speaking and Russian-speaking populace (Slavs ond others), not between ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians (with Ukrainians and Jews and others cheering from the sidelines) and it is evident in the Bronze Soldier controversy. RJ CG 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

-Rift is largely between Estonian-speaking and Russian-speaking populace is an opinion, not a fact. Even though I can respect your's since you have a right to one like anybody else. My opinion is different: the rift is political and the front line goes first of all between Estonian and Russian/Soviet nationalists. In my opinion average Estonians respect the feelings of Russian people to whom the WWII was the great patriotic war and decent Russians respect feelings of Estonians to whom, even though the Soviet army liberated Estonia from Nazis in 1944, what happened before in 1940 and followed after was unwelcome Soviet occupation for another 50 years.

Now, the Bronze Soldier controversy started as a conflict between Estonian and Russian/Soviet nationalists about 1 year ago. This year things were much worse since it was Tallinn's Mayor Savisaar who allowed two protests – one by Estonian nationalists and the other by veterans of WWII – to take place in front of the monument simultaneously.

At the same time, it's a fact that there are Estonians that support even the Soviet POV and vice versa Russophones in Estonia that support the official Estonian POV regarding the events of the WWII. Also, my opinion gets support from the fact that The Tallinn City government was in an active opposition with relocating the Bronze soldier. And even though there are people that are Russian speakers in the majors political party, the majority are still Estonians. Further on, there have been many Estonians that have taken different sides regarding the issue like there have been Russophones. Therefore there are no basis for any claims like stated in == Controversies today== regarding bitter debate based on linguistic or ethnic identity and therefor it's not factual data and is just someones personal opinion that is not suitable for an encyclopedia I think.--Termer 04:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• roughed out new Controversies section, hope its more NPOV--Termer 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust in Estonia 1941 - 1944

"anti-Semitism In Lithuania in particular" has nothing to do with Estonia, removing not relevant issues from History of Estonia, please rephrase the section if needed from NPOV--Termer 07:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that while pre-war Estonia had Jewish population of 4500, then approx. 500 were deported/murdered by Soviets during first occupation and further 3000 fled to (mostly) Soviet Russia - so when Germans arrived, there were about 1000 Jews in Estonia, not 4500. DLX 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• done. according to the refs there were between 1,500 and 2,000 Jews left in Estonia by the time when Germans arrived. before the soviet occupation there were about 4500. About 500 of them were deported by the Soviets to Siberia together with Estonians and according to http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005448 ''At least half of Estonian Jews had left the country during this period (the first Soviet Occupation in 1940-1941)--Termer 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonian Self-Administration

of course should be merged like suggested. lets get it done.--Termer 23:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Estonia (1918-1940)

Hello, please stop altering with the facts. Since the fact is, the Republic of Estonia has existed since 1918 and it says so on every source that has refs to the Republic of Estonia. Please User:Petri_Krohn stop editing WP according to your personal opinions.Thanks!--Termer 08:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This cat is to be deleted

There is no such thing as "Holocaust in Estonia", instead it is "The Holocaust", the categoy is totally fake. All the articles tagged here are done so by User:Petri Krohn, known anti Estonian POV pusher. There are no articles-categories "Holocaust in Latvia", "Holocaust in Belarus" or "Holocaust in Lithuania". This is simple Original Research and POV pushing and without whatsoever notability or reliable sources.

Utter rubbish. The Holocaust has been labeled in such a manner several times. There is nothing "OR" about it. 50.111.57.134 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

move

The word Nazi is superfluous in this title I suggest that this article is moved to "Occupation of Estonia by Germany" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. There is a distinction between Germany and Nazi Germany. Martintg (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of Estonia by Germany? Estonia was first occupied by medival Germany and Denmark in the 13th century during Livonian Crusade. And Germans remained the ruling class for 700 hundred years until the Estonian War of Independence 1918-1920 that ended another German occupation of Estonia during the WWI. This article is about WWII if I'm not mistaken.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "birn" :
  • Birn, Ruth Bettina (2001), [http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=81766 Collaboration with Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe: the Case of the Estonian Security Police]. ''[[Contemporary European History]]'' 10.2, 181-198.
  • Birn, Ruth Bettina (2001), Collaboration with Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe: the Case of the Estonian Security Police. ''[[Contemporary European History]]'' 10.2, 181-198.

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Miacek & Martintg, can you explain, why this contribution [2] is not useful?--82.131.73.212 (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What about collaboration? =

To my big surprise, I found no "Collaboration" section in this article, although the amount of sources on that subject is sufficient even for a separate article. I propose to add the section about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, so long as it is complies with WP:RS and WP:V. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have talked with an author of the Estonia 1940-1945 report by the Estonian International History Commission and he explained that the classical view of collaborationism (most typically, Vichy France) does not apply for the Baltics. While France had just one enemyy, the Baltic countries had two enemies, who were fighting each other. It was impossible to fight an enemy without ending up at the other one's side. This is the reason why researchers use the term 'collaborationism' only for cases clearly beyond a military alliance, such as crimes against humanity. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Estonian Self-Administration and Estonian Security Police and SD certainly fits the definition of collaborationist. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Then the section should be titled accordingly. Moreover, I suggest to combine resistance and collaborationism into a single section, and name it "Collaboration and resistance", because it covers to different aspects of relations between the occupants and the occupied nation.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration and resistance still involved different people. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For instance, Uluots, who is presented as a pro-independence leader, simultaneously committed a blatant act of collaboration by supporting mobilization. Although I fully realise that his primary goal was to restore independence, the most direct and important consequence of his interview was that Wehrmach got a significant number of well motivated fighters, who significantly retarded the Allied advance in the East, and, probably, delayed the fall of the Third Reich. I fully realise that this story had many other aspects, however, that does not change the fact that a pro-independence leader was a collaborator.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but it could be argued that the Narva campaign actually hastened the fall of Germany, as the German high command wanted to completely withdraw Army Group North earlier to reinforce the centre, significantly shortening the frontline and directly boosting the defence of Germany proper. Ofcourse Hitler overuled his Generals with his "never-give-up-a-millimetre" approach. As it happened a significant number of troops were cut-off in the Courland Pocket. Grier sums up Hitler's collossal strategic blunder when he states: "Over one million German soldiers fought in the Baltic bridgeheads, most of these troops therefore could not participate in the defence of areas previously considered to be the most decisive to Nazi Germany's survival, namely the Ruhr and Silesian industrial areas, and the Reich capital, Berlin"[3] --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above, it is not that simple. Collaborationism and pro-independentism are mutually exclusive, as the former involves treason. By labeling Uluots a collaborator we call the Prime Minister in the duties of the President a traitor. And that is simply a fringe view. So I suggest you stick to your usual reserved act and be careful with the C-bomb. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me also point out that I do not insist on combining these section together. What I object against is the attempt to present resistance as the phenomenon related to the nation as whole, and to attribute collaboration to just some representatives of the Estonian nation. In addition, although I fully understand that you, being Estonian, are not comfortable to read that, however, I have to say that during last few days I performed some literature search and I found no examples of non-Communist anti-German resistance in Estonia, and, to my surprise, I found additional examples of Estonian collaboration. I think, we need to discuss how to expand the section devoted to this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that is not that simple. However, let me ask you if I understand the situation correctly: Uluots, as the underground Prime Minister of Estonia, in his interview encouraged his nation to accept the help from Germany and to fight the Soviets. I have no other words to describe this act as a call to collaborate with Germany, who, by that moment, shared with Estonia the same tactical goals in Baltic. Please, tell me what is wrong in my conclusion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary gives two meanings for the word collaborate. The general one is 'work jointly on an activity or project' (see collaboration) and the specific one is 'cooperate traitorously with an enemy' (see collaborationism). So if the cooperation does not involve treason, it is not collaboration in this specific context. Otherwise we would call everyone cooperating with German officials collaborators, but we simply do not. The example of Finnish cooperation with Germany is perhaps a good parallel. An opposite example is the Estonian Self-Administration who facilitated a mass murder of citizens of Estonia based on their ethnicity. It is difficult to fully avoid the collaborator's label for them, although this should be done with great consideration as well. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree with you that there was no genuine anti-German resistance outside the political one. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You probably noticed that I never used the word "treason", and I do not understand how can it be applied to this situation. With regard to Finnish cooperation, the difference between description of Finland and Estonia on the WP pages is that whereas the former is described as German co-belligerent, the latter is presented simultaneously as de factoGerman co-belligerent (Battle of Narva), as the neutral country, and as a member of anti-Nazi resistance. That is somewhat illogical.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of "collaboration" in the context of war is clear, you do not need to use the word "treason", since the core definition of "collaboration" is to cooperate traitorously with the enemy. Hjalmar Mäe was a traitor, Uluots was not. As I recall Finland was neutral in 1939, a co-belligerent with Germany until 1944, then after the Moscow Armistice was an enemy of Germany. Estonia was neutral in 1940, part of the anti-Nazi resistance politically from 1941 until 1944, then de facto a co-belligerent in 1944. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you seem to forget that during the occupation, the Prime Minister never exercised anything near state power over the nation. If it did, then it would have probably ended up on the German side. But that is just speculation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nazi garrisoning of Estonia

The map of Estonia is dotted with many towns, besides the larger cities. Are there any sources on where and what strength the occupation forces were stationed in the country?50.111.57.134 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Bizarre

Having arrived at the article from Estonian MFA's bizarre tweet, I find our article to be very shabby. There are decent sources in English to write a comprehensive article. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)