Talk:3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade

Voluntary in name only
Nazis, like many totalitarians, had rather unusual views of how voluntarism works. In reality, this brigade was subject to draft; membership in it was not voluntary for many of its members. Accordingly, the categorisation should list it under conscript units. Дигвурен ДигвуровичАллё? 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

'Nazi collaborators' category
The subject of this article does not belong to that list, as compulsory service cannot be considered collaborationism. The unit was not voluntary but conscripted in general mobilisation under a threat of punishment. A fortiori, collaborationism is treason of cooperation with enemy forces. Germany and Estonia were not enemies at the time.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good that you clarified it: Nazis and Estonia were not enemies. They were working together. That makes Estonia Nazi collaborators. Just like in France government of the time until German ass was kicked, after which they flipped sides. And you know, in France some were with Nazis, but others were with resistance. And the first ones are called collaborators, and others are called anti-Nazists. Timurite (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am aware of the position of Estonia between anvil and hammer in this war and I sympathize with it. Both choices were bad. The same problem was for many other small nations swallowed by Soviets: Ukraine, Belarus, Chechens, Ingushs, Latvians, etc. For whatever reason some of them collaborated with Nazis, they did it. Timurite (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no parallel whatsoever between the Vichy Government of France and Estonia. France was at war with Germany while Estonia never was. Also, labelling something as collaborationism implies willingness. The Nuremberg Trials, in declaring the Waffen SS a criminal organization, explicitly excluded conscripts. The list of Estonian Nazi collaborators cannot disaccord with the Nuremberg Trials, can it? Estonian organisations under German occupation as collaborationism is WP:OR as it disaccords with the definition of collaborationism as willing treason of cooperation with the enemy. Germany was France's enemy, not Estonia's. The formations were forcibly conscripted. The burden of evidence lies on you, otherwise there is no basis for the Nazi collaborator label and it will be removed. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Vichy Government was not at war with Germany. And Estonia is not listed among German allies. And the whole point of today's Estonian politics about Estonian Waffen SS is that they were wilful fighters with communism. Also formations were not forcibly conscripted. People were. And not all of them were forced. There were plenty of volunteers. Also, as wikipedia writes:
 * "On 7 February Jüri Uluots, the last constitutional prime minister of the republic of Estonia [4] supported the mobilization call during a radio address in hopes for restoring the Estonian Army and independence of the country" and "Collaboration ranged from urging the civilian population to remain calm and accept foreign occupation without conflict, organizing trade, production, financial and economic support to joining various branches of the armed forces of Axis powers or special "national" military units fighting under their command."
 * Also the quote given in Jüri Uluots (The Baltic States: The National Self-Determination of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania Graham Smith p.91 ISBN 0312161921) writes about conscripts which were far from being forcerd. Timurite (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re:Vichy Government was not at war with Germany.—That is true but what does it have to do with anything? Do you personally recognise the Vichy Government as legitimate over the Government of France that was at war with Germany?
 * Re: And Estonia is not listed among German allies.—I am struggling to find a point here either. Estonia stayed neutral throughout the war, as declared over the radio by the Estonian Government in Exile on 18 September 1944. A neutral country has no enemies, wherefore there can be no cooperation with enemy forces.
 * Re:And the whole point of today's Estonian politics about Estonian Waffen SS is that they were wilful fighters with communism.—Estonian politics are not a relevant source for Wikipedia. Perhaps only as an alternative opinion but not as the mainstream scholarly view as required by the Wikipedia policies.
 * Re:Also formations were not forcibly conscripted. People were.—There were no formations without conscripted people.
 * Re:And not all of them were forced.—The Baltic SS formations were conscripted in general mobilisations, as stated by a message from the U.S. High Commission in Germany (HICOG), signed by John J. McCloy to the Secretary of State on 13 April, 1950, clarifying the US position on the Baltic Legions: they were not to be seen as "movements," "volunteer," or "SS." According to the verdicts of the Nuremberg Trials, conscripts were excluded from any criminal charges. A fortiori, companies formed of Estonian SS units provided guards for the accused Nazi war criminals, the Nuremberg International Tribunal courthouse, the various depots and residences of US officers and prosecutors connected with the trial. Do you earnestly think the US authorities would give such duties to alleged Nazi collaborators?
 * Re:On 7 February Jüri Uluots, the last constitutional prime minister of the republic of Estonia [4] supported the mobilization call —Uluots had no political power whatsoever. Estonia was entirely governed by the Reichskomissariat Ostland, remember? I sincerely advise you to do your homework and read at least one book on the Baltics in WWII before editing.
 * Re:"Collaboration ranged from urging the civilian population to remain calm and accept foreign occupation without conflict,—You cannot avoid the definition of Collaborationism describing the treason of cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. You have provided no sources that label the formation collaborationist or cooperating with enemy forces. This makes it your not very educated opinion against the historical research. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The matter as I see it is quite simple: the category should be there. Per what this article says and what I've come to known from the huge WP disputes around WW2 in the Baltics in the past years, this unit was, at least initially, formed from volunteers (as its name suggests). In the latter part of its existence it supposedly became conscription-only unit. Obviously conscripted men can't be considered Nazi collaborators, which is clearly not the case for those volunteers in the early months of this unit's existence. Those volunteers din not join a unit under the control of the Estonian Gvt in Exile or of the ESSR, but one under Nazi control, Estonia being considered an occupied territory at the time by everybody, including the Nazi themselves. Not including the category would mean erasing half of this unit's existence, and thus violating NPOV.Anonimu (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re:The matter as I see it is quite simple:—You have it wrong from the very first words. There is nothing simple in this unique matter. Uneducated simplifications (like:"They served, didn't they? Hence collaborated.") can lead to terrible errors. Parallels with Vichy France are totally out of place here.
 * Re:formed from volunteers (as its name suggests)—False. Its name is a Nazi euphemism. The unit was formed in the first conscription-mobilisation in Estonia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The conscriptions started only in February, so everyone who served before (i.e. during the first 3 months of the unit's existence) was a volunteer and a thus a Nazi collaborator, plain and simple. It's nothing that unique (i.e. compared to other Nazi units during WW2), so no need to create false problems.Anonimu (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg you to do your homework. The conscription-mobilisation started in March 1943. (Toomas Hiio, Peeter Kaasik (1999). "Estonian units in the Waffen-SS". in Toomas Hiio, Meelis Maripuu, & Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 927–968.) --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the source talk explicitly about the 3rd? Mobilisation in Nazi-occupied Estonia were also used for civil duty (i.e. non-voluntary labour), so you need a source explicitly saying about conscriptions in the 3rd before the Feb '44 conscription.Anonimu (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the title of the cited article. It is "Estonian units in the Waffen-SS" and it does not discuss conscription for civil duty. It says the 3rd Estonian SS Brigade was formed in the conscription-mobilisation in March to May 1943. There was a general conscription-mobilisation for another age group in October, which were sent to the Estonian SS Brigade again. The conscription in February 1944, you are referring to, mobilised the men born in 1904-1923 and by that time the brigade had already been renamed the 20th Estonian SS Division.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please quote the relevant passage from the source on this talkpage.Anonimu (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here you go, I bring relevant passage from the chapter “The covert mobilisation from March to August 1943 of those born in 1919-1924”, pp. 937-938. “On 24 February 1943, the civil labour obligation for those born 1919-1924 was publicly announced in Estonia. On recruitment the recruits were encouraged to choose the Estonian Legion. Hjalmar Mäe, in a circular to institutions under his subordination, encouraged/ordered them to join the Legion, “In the near future a civil labour obligation will be discharged either by serving in the military forces or employment in industries vital to the war effort. Those enlisting in the Estonian Legion will be exempt from the civil labour obligation. Since all men in this age group will leave the employment of the Estonian Self-Administration I expect all fit Estonians to fulfil their patriotic duty and voluntarily enlist in the Legion.” The enforcement of the civil labour obligation, especially the exemption from it for those who volunteered for the Legion, was treated in Estonia as a covert mobilisation.”


 * Chapter “The implementation of the military service obligation for those born in 1925 and 1924”, p. 939. “On 26 October, the Head of Estonian Self-Administration, Hjalmar Mäe, issued the “Regulation for the call-up of men born in 1925 into the defence forces”, which made it obligatory for all men born in 1925, who had been citizens of the Republic of Estonia before 20 June 1940, to enter the defence forces.” and “On 10 December 1943, the “Regulation for the call to military service for men born in 1924” was issued.”


 * As you can see, the brigade was recruited in general mobilisations. The researchers consider the first of them as covert while the next two were openly announced conscriptions. The Nuremberg Trials and the U.S. Government have excluded the Baltic SS formations from any criminal charges. Therefore the burden of proof, meaning presenting sources that would overbalance the already presented ones, lies on the editors who wish to label them as collaborators. //Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Criminal charges is not the main recognition of collaboration. Even a minor clerk who carried shooting orders from table to table was collaborator. Ones who helped Nazis were collaborations, period. There is not need big legalese. Timurite (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Criminal charges are only a sign of collaborationism as commonly, collaborators received criminal charges in the courts of human rights. As the wikiarticle on collaborationism says, collaborationism implies criminal deeds. Once again, do you think the U.S. authorities would have tasked alleged Nazi collaborators to provide guards for the accused Nazi war criminals, the Nuremberg International Tribunal courthouse, the various depots and residences of US officers and prosecutors connected with the trial?
 * Another essential feature of collaborationism is a free will to collaborate. I have brought major historical and legal sources addressing the issue. You have brought only WP:OR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia article says "The term in this negative meaning is also used for German individuals and institutions cooperating with the Nazi regime, though in their case it was not a foreign occupation, and later to people cooperating with or helping other dictatorial regimes in their own countries, even when foreign occupation was not involved.". Timurite (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It still implies willing cooperation and needs a source that specifically deals with the brigade and lists it among collaborators. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that Estonians were reluctant and unwilling to fight against Soviet Union? And they are not proud of this today? Timurite (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See more in "Nazi collaborators" page. Timurite (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not telling anything but the fact that the mainstream legal and historical research does not consider these formations collaborationist. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my new thread below. Timurite (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Timurite, you keep pushing an extreme POV without providing any authoritative references. Your opponents, on the other hand, have clearly sourced their counterarguments on this page and all the others. In your claims you only seem to follow your own moral standards and most of your arguments are based only on your own personal opinion. Please do adhere to an NPOV. --Vihelik (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Root of the problem: vague term
As I see now, the reason of this thread is vague definition of the term "Nazi collaboration". And extremely poorly written article Collaborationism. As various articles say, there are numerous rersons for cooperation with Nazis, one of them being a reasonable but misguided hope to defeat Soviet Union. Therefore I suggest to split the category into two, one of them being politically neutral, according to article title: category:Collaboration with the Axis Powers. Another which covers criminal aspect: category:Criminal charges of Nazi collaboration. Please comment. Timurite (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree once again. The root of the problem are over-eager Nazi-hunters who jump the conclusions, violating WP:OR and WP:RS. In Wikipedia, a collaborator is no more and no less than a person or an organisation regarded a collaborator by mainstream historical and legal research. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please avoid comments on wikipedians which may be considered as personal attacks. Please discuss the suggestion basing on verifiable information. Please keep in mind that "in Wikipedia" is invalid argument. The valid argument is "in reliable sources". - Altenmann >t 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re:Please avoid comments on wikipedians which may be considered as personal attacks.—I have not commented on any wikipedians. My comment was on over-eager Nazi-hunters who jump the conclusions in general, including those outside Wikipedia.
 * Re:Please discuss the suggestion basing on verifiable information.—Sorry, I do not have verifiable information on that.
 * Re:"in Wikipedia" is invalid argument. The valid argument is "in reliable sources"—I just said:" In Wikipedia, a collaborator is no more and no less than a person or an organisation regarded a collaborator by mainstream historical and legal research," which means I demand WP:RS for every listing on a Wikipedia category. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not over-eager. I am just eager; eager to classify things in Wikipedia. A spade is a spade is a spade. If someone served Nazis, I want it categorized. If you want to reserve term "collaborator" for those who were criminalized, no problem. I can settle for Category:Cooperation with Nazis or Category:Cooperation with Axis Powers. Timurite (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still not getting wp:or, are you? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean. Timurite (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re:Please explain what you mean.—Just that you cannot tag anyone as collaborator without the consensus of WP:RS and the Wikipedia editors. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't you read what I've just written? I've just agreed, in part, to withdraw the term "collaborator", although I disagree with your narrow interpretation of it. Timurite (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have a definition, I try to apply the mainstream scholarly view on the unique Baltic case. Once again, the root of the problem is superficiality. A number of people served in numerous public civil services subordinated to and directly supporting the German occupation regime, including police, militia, firefighting system, health care and so on. There may be radical sources, which list them among collaborators, but the mainstream scholarly research avoids such a hyperbola. Then there is the question of the Baltic Waffen-SS. The fringe sources may overlook the fact that conscripts are excluded from the definition of collaboration while mainstream sources do not tag them as collaborators. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The lithmus test is simple: did the service in question perform duties beyond ones required to normal society/state life? Did they cooperate with Nazis to do something directly related to Nazi occupation? And this is the mainstream view. Firefighters are off the hook. Police is not, if they held not only robbers and muggers, but also POWs or anti-Nazi fighters. Timurite (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. It is interesting to note that exact the same argument is in relation to communist crimes: it was all Stalin and Beria: the rest are innocent obeying orders and working to earn their bread. Timurite (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have only one thing to say: you cannot categorise an article for something that is not stated in the text. I have citedmajor WP:RS, which say, the Baltic Waffen-SS are to be treated separately from other foreign SS-formations. Before we see any WP:RS from you that overweigh that, this discussion is in vain. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Estonia wasn't an ally of Germany? yes, the Republic of Estonia wasn't an ally unlike Finland for example. at the same time there is an entire book written on the subject | Germany's Eastern Front Allies (2): Baltic Forces. Also, yes the unit under discussion was partly voluntary, partly put together with conscripts. But at the same time many chose not to get conscripted and escaped to Finland. The question is if this article should be included with the category Nazi collaborators? I don't know, it implies like the unit collaborated with the National Socialist party. Also, the whole Finnish Army was in collaboration with Germany during the most of the WWII like the baltic waffen SS units but for some reason there Finnish Army has no Nazi collaboration category added to it. So consistency would be good: in case the military units and the whole national armies collaborated with Germany during WWII should those be categorized as Nazi collaborators on wikipedia? Other than that suggestion by Timurite splitting the nazi collaboration category into something like category:Collaboration with the Axis Powers and category:Criminal charges of Nazi collaboration makes sense to me.--Termer (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content
The article has been tagged since Dec 2015 requesting additional citations (please see User_talk:K.e.coffman).

None have been added, so then next step, per WP:V, was to remove the content. Please note that the tag states that “unsourced content may be challenged or removed”. I did not remove the content, but simply commented it out. If other editors plan to improve sourcing that would be great. Otherwise, keeping the unsourced, potentially inaccurate content, is contrary to WP:V. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)