Talk:Estonian War of Independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Baltic states military history task force

	Russia Portal Estonian War of Independence is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Estonian War of Independence is part of the WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Number of soldiers on the Estonian side 2 Maps of 1919-1920 wars 3 conflict with the Landeswehr 4 May 1919 offensive 5 Info box 6 Title 7 POV title? But perhaps the Soviet POV is 'POV' for once? 8 Requested move 8.1 Survey 8.1.1 Survey - Support votes 8.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 8.2 Sources 8.3 Discussion 9 Resumption of comments 10 Question from a newbie 11 flag for Landeswehr?

[edit] Number of soldiers on the Estonian side

The Estonian War Museum's website says that there were 85 000 soldiers on the Estonian side: http://www.laidoner.ee/index.php/lang/eng/article/estonian-war-of-independence

[edit] Maps of 1919-1920 wars

I need help! I'm currently preparing a set of maps for the Polish-Bolshevik War of 1919-1920, with the sites of the major battles and the frontlines marked. I would also like to include not only the frontlines of the Russo-Polish war, but also the frontlines of the Latvian and Estonian wars with Bolshevist Russia. Could anyone post a link to a map or description of the frontlines?

The maps I'm working on:

• March 1919
• December 1919
• June 1920
• August 1920

--Halibutt 13:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I added a map to the article yesterday. Reimgild 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] conflict with the Landeswehr

The previous version depicted the Baltic German Landeswehr in June 1919 as the armed force of United Baltic Duchy. This is misleading, because in 1919 German Kaiser Wilhelm and his vassal princes had certainly no role in any political plans of Baltic Germans or anyone else. What general Goltz certainly wanted was to control Latvia through the puppet government of Latvia. And the assumption that he also wanted to conquer the entire Estonia is more a speculation than a fact. Warbola 05:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May 1919 offensive

"decided to push their defense lines across the border into Russia." sounds like a pro-Estonian way of saying advanced into Russia. Isnt any military attack that then fortifies itself considered "moving defense lines?" A clearer way to say it would be: Having expelled the Estonian Bolsheviks, the Estonian nationalist army then advanced into Russia. Rakovsky 09:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true, second variant is more neutral. This phrase "push their defense lines across the border into Russia" shows the attitude of "Estomian historiography" towards the facts.Victor V V (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info box

The info box oversimplifies what was a very complicated political situation. As well as fighting the Bolsheviks, Estonians fought Germans of 2 kinds - Reich-Germans and Baltic Germans whose ambitions were not always the same. Then there were the White Russians, with whom the Estonians did not always have good relations. On should not forget cooperation with Latvian Nationalists, and finally the Western Allies (Britain and France) had influential views of their own. Squeezing this kaleidoscope into two protagonists who sound like "us" and "them" does not do the situation justice. 62.65.192.23 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Main fighting took place between Estonia and the Bolsheviks. White Russians, Latvians and Britain were connected to Estonian Liberation War only as much as they cooperated with Estonian army, otherwise it is practically impossible to draw any line between Estonian Liberation War and Russian civil war. Landeswehr war was quite small sideconflict that lasted only 1 month(and 1/3 of it was cease-fire). Estonian Liberation War started then Soviets attacked Estonia and ended then Estonia and Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic signed peace treaty at Tartu so it clearly was mainly between Bolsheviks and Estonia. Staberinde 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should be a compendium of knowledge, not the imprinting of video-game mentality onto historical situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.20 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Main fighting in Estonian Liberation War was between Estonians and blosheviks. Lets look at very similar conflict Polish-Soviet War. There was also very complicated situation, not only fighting between Poles and bolsheviks. Poles fought with some Ukrainians and aganist other Ukrainians. Poles had military conflict with Lithuanians. Also poles cooperated with Latvians. French had their own interests there. Czechoslovakia used moment to take over Tešin. And if I remember correctly then even Estonian and Polish troops even met at some moment in Latvia. So situation was similarly(or even more) complicated. But as we can see from wikipedia article about it, it has infobox, as its featured article its probably not considered oversimplifieing there and I do not see any reason to consider it oversimplifieing in Estonian Liberation War. (Staberinde 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

Darfur conflict Has an infobox suitable also for this war. --Artman40 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done! --Artman40 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Please provide the evidence that ELW is the prevailing name for the conflict in English historiography and has the significant usage there. --Irpen 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

also, it's Estonian-POV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest Estonian War of Independence. --Pudeo (Talk) 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since no answer is given for long enough, I am adding a POV-title tag. --Irpen 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Estonian Liberation War" and "Estonian War of Independence" are in my opinion only serious options as title. Latter is probably better.--Staberinde 18:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick searches :-)

Google Print for "Estonian War of Independence": 11 books.

Google Print for "Estonian Liberation War": 1 book, mentioning "Another Finnish volunteer force of over 4000 men joined in the Estonian liberation war in late December 1918".

Google Scholar for "Estonian War of Independence": 32 results.

Google Scholar for "Estonian Liberation War": 0 results.

Amazon.com for "Estonian War of Independence": 6 books.

Amazon.com for "Estonian Liberation War": 0 books.

Best regards, Evv 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the POV-title tag on the American War of Independence? The article is called "American Revolutionary War" and has the following footnote:

British writers generally favor "American War of Independence" or "War of American Independence". In the United States, the war is generally called the "Revolutionary War," "War for Independence," or simply "the Revolution."

Try to be objective but try to understand where the search for objectivity turns into obsession. At the end of the day none of us can be fully objective, its something we have to live with. Wait 100 years and see them laugh at what today's editors agree is "objective". Ehaver 20 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.22 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• As "Estonian War of Independence" seems to be more popular in English then "Estonian Liberation War" move should be done. Anyone disagrees?--Staberinde 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree :-) Irpen started this section two weeks ago, so I guess there's no problem with requesting the move right now. If nobody did it before, I'll file the request in WP:RM in a little while. - Regards, Evv 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for a formal WP:RM if all concerned party agree on the new name at this talk page. --Irpen 22:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I see... nevertheless, a formal WP:RM would allow for the participation and input of other editors, who may be interested on the issue but are not keeping track of this specific article. That's why I would prefer it. Having said that, I leave the decision to more experienced editors, like yourself :-) - Best regards, Evv 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: sorry, I went along with the formal WP:RM, because Ghirlandajo's comment made me think that other currently uninvolved editors may object to this particular move. - Best regards, Evv 12:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We still need an admin to do the move because "Estonian War of Independence" is redirect page with history(I tried to make move myselfly but it wasn't possible).--Staberinde 11:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

While there is no denying that the title is blatantly biassed and does not conform to our policies of neutrality, I take issue with the practice of deleting redirects that lead to this page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That mistake I self-reverted myselfly immediately(explanation on my talk page).--Staberinde 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV title? But perhaps the Soviet POV is 'POV' for once?

The title itself isn't POV - it was used even in Soviet books, e.g the War of “Liberation” , that is, in quotation marks. The title had been so widely used, that the Soviets just tried to reduce it to so-called Liberation War etc. But was still used. As for alleged anti-Soviet bias... compare different cases by the same comrades: [1], [2], [3]. As we all know, every war, that the USSR waged, was a just war, as comrade Stalin put it. It's a pity, though, that such clear soviet POV warriors have found a place to pursue their propaganda here in wikipedia. Constanz - Talk 08:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resumption of comments

To all who participated in earlier discussion re War of Liberation vs. War of Independence. I have my own theory about how this might initially have come about. Estonians and Finns who speak English as an acquired language might simply not have the experience to realize that what Estonians call the "Vabadussõda" - the War of Freedom - is with great consistency called a war of independence in English scholarly and military circles. It is the "going concept" among anglos, if you will. "Vabadus" is freedom in general in Estonian, it sounds nice and lyrical. It is sometimes much less frequently called the iseseisvussõda as well, or at least to say so would be very well comprehended by Estonians - iseseisvus means to stand alone and sovereign, to not be dependent. I figure what may have happened is that a native Estonian most likely started out by writing War of Liberation, not realizing that this has another important connotation in English. Estonians would understand if it were translated back from War of Liberation to Estonian, which would make it a "vabastamissõda", which is a war of liberating or of being liberated. The Brits and Canadians and a host of others helped liberate Nazi-occupied France in WWII. Many Kuwaitis would feel, I suggest, that Americans helped liberate them from Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War. In Iraq, on the other hand, there are probably quite a few locals who don't regard the incursion of coalition forces to topple Saddam as a war of liberation, despite insistences that emanate from the White House. In the case of Estonia, it was indeed a war of emancipation, but essentially a war of self-emancipation. Though Brits were involved, it was not a British but an Estonian operation. Consequently, you'd end up with empty hands if you sought an outside force that liberated the Estonians. The Estonians independently attained their independence and it would have been in error and confusing to leave the unusual and unstandard title of "War of Liberation" above the article in question. The editors got it right in changing it. One final argument: all the Western scholars with proper command of English who have written on the topic (e.g. Toivo U. Raun, author of the authoritative "Estonian and the Estonians" as well as Romuland J. Misiunas and Rein Taagepera in their benchmark work "The Baltic States: Years of Dependence") have used the term "War of Independence". They realized that use of a standard term would make what took place in Estonia universally understandable, and would also help avoid the polemics that finally brought about the very justifiable change in this case from the rather unfortunate "Estonian War of Liberation" to the proper and adequate "Estonian War of Independence". Sean Maleter 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question from a newbie

Is this inclusion of the Estonian War of Independence article under a Russian History project an example of standard Wikipedia practice? Are Denmark and Norway and Crete and Poland in WWII parts of e.g. a German History project? Is the US a subset of a British history project? Thanks Sean Maleter 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Sean Maleter. Yes, it is standard practice :-)

• Operation Weserübung & Norwegian Campaign are parts of the "WikiProject Military history", including the related "German military history task force".
• Battle of Crete, also part of the "WikiProject Military history", including the related "German military history task force".
• Invasion of Poland (1939), also part of the "WikiProject Military history", including the related "German military history task force".
• American Revolutionary War is part of the "WikiProject Military history", including the related "British military history task force".

I don't know how the "WikiProject Russian History" is organized, but in principle all Russian history (including any war in which Russia or the Soviet Union were involved) falls under its scope. It just represents the different ways in which editors organize themselves to collaborate on certain topics. There's also a WikiProject Estonia.

Best regards, Evv 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flag for Landeswehr?

So, which flag should be used for representing Landeswehr? As has been noted - United Baltic Duchy flag is misleading, besides UBD itself was an unrecognized state which practically ceased its existance after German surrender. Having them under Wiemar German flag could also be somewhat misleading because the Freikorps were not the official German army, and did not always take orders from Berlin. I will put them under Weimar German flag now, but another idea would be to have them flagless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.195 (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not  Latvian flag? Landeswehr was formally subjected to Niedras government. Oth 08:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That would certainly be confusing because at one point the Landeswehr faught against Latvian government. Besides, it's not like they were the official Latvian army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.195 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the United Baltic Duchy flag is the most suitable one, after all. The Landeswehr in question here is UBD's army, whatever status UBD itself had. The Republic of Estonia was not widely recognized at that time either, but the army participating on that side was the army of the R of E (with assisting forces), hence the Estonian flag is suitable. The R of E happened to persist, the UBD happened not to. So I'd vote for restoring the UBD flag for Landeswehr. A deciding question (the answer to which I do not know) would be: What flag did Landeswehr fight under? The Estonian side fought under the Estonian flag. But the Landeswehr? Reimgild 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but what about the fact that Landeswehr took orders from Berlin? For instance it's rather important that when Entente pressured Germany to withdraw its troops from the Baltics, Germany at first refused but then agreed. And when it did so, the Landeswehr as well as Iron Division were both successfully withdrawn. This suggests that the overall control of the situation was excercized by Germany, not by some UBD government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.113 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, never mind, it has been settled in Latvian article to have Landeswehr under UBD flag while its commander under German Weimar flag. This should probably be the most accurate representation.

As I mentioned elsewhere, only Goltz went home, the German force remained as "volunteers." The engineering of the attempted coup was by the Baltic Germans barons, that is, UBD, regardless of commander. (There was at least one more short-time commander.) PētersV 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all German forces were turned over to Russian Volunteer Army, many were actually shipped home, suddenly and without warning (a fact with mightily annoyed Bermant-Avalov and his then-ally General Liven). But this is besides the point - it has already been settled to have them under UBD flag.

Also, a small note regarding British participation. Besides the obvious naval operations, there was also a sizable contingent of British officers shipped from Finland, including General Sir Hubert de la Poer Gough, who was the official head of the Allied Mission to the Baltic States. The British officers did not directly participate in any combat, however they did provide some operational aid and that is the reason why I originally had "British Empire" instead of "British Navy" in the combatant list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.113 (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Uups, just noticed the discussion here. I didn't get it, what's wrong with the duchy flag since the guys were fighting for it, I mean for the Duchy? Anyway, the Weimar German flag would be totally out of context. If anything it should be the Duchy flag unless there is a good reason why not? The Duchy never existed in the reality anyway, it wasn't more than an attempt that lasted well into this conflict. so why not to let the guys have their flag at least since they didn't get anything and lost everything after this war. I'm referring to the land reform.--Termer 10:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Uups here as well, I didn't notice the latest changes to the flags. Goltz needs to be under a German flag, not under the UBD, to reflect his organizational status (Bermondt stays as is). However, in terms of the contending parties, as I mentioned, both earlier and later (Goltz and Bermondt), both were there under the lead of the Baltic Germans and both military movements should be under the UBD. Having the later military movement under the Russian flag is just as misleading as having the prior one under the German flag. Had Bermondt succeeded, Latvia would not have become Russian, it would have (indeed) allied itself as a duchy to Germany.

   Especially, the current complete "flag" alignment of commanders/parties on "that side" I believe is a grave and misleading simplification. PētersV 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)