Talk:Erna long-range reconnaissance group

Soviet historigraphy
Some Erna veterans were charged and convicted of spying for Finland. If Soviet historigraphy views them as Nazi collaborators and controlled by the Abwehr, why were they not charged as being German spies? Is this an example of historical revisionism to suit current politics? I'd like a source for this assertion of Nazi collaborationism from the period. Did Soviet historigraphy also claim Finland was a nation of Nazi collaborators, because they also fought on Germany's side? Therefore does present day Russia continue to view the Finnish Army as a Nazi collaborationist organsation? Martintg 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably does view it as such. I recently read an article by Mart Laar, in which he reviews some recent products of Russian official historiography. Laar mentioned a book from 2006, which treats Finland as a tiny yet aggressive state, that managed to invaded Russia 3 times in the course of the 2oth century... Erik Jesse 11:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Russian official historiography seems to view the Erna as an Abwehr organisation, but the men were convicted back in 1946 as being Finnish spies rather than German spies, which seems to contradict that view. I'd be interested to know what the 1946 sources say on the matter. Martintg 23:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Russian official historiography seems to view the Erna as an Abwehr organisation" and the Estonian historians (not political propagandists) tend to agree. According to Volunteers, Conscripts and Commandeered Troops "The unit was formed to work in cooperation with Finnish and German military intelligence". Your dogged excercise in denialism had been for naught. Hopefully it will NOT teach you a lesson not to push denial theories too far. RJ CG 12:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely reluctant to view Mart Laar as an impartial analyst. He isn't just "side in the war" - he's one who basically starting the process of revision. I don't want to comment on merits of his work, but he obviously has vested interest in portraying his opponents as a bunch of Kremlin-fed monkeys spewing out stale Commie lies. Web is chocking full of content in an English dealing with history of WWII and recent Russian interpretation of it. Why did you choose to rely on such partial source? RJ CG 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mart Laar is a professional historian with many published works. Unless you can point to a published reliable source that critiques Laar's work, you view is just speculation and has no basis. Martintg 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You completely missed my point. I did not say anything about scientific merits of Laar's work, I just said that he can't be impartial source in assessment of Russian historical school, as he propelled his career from humble postdoc to Estonian big chief on denying anything and everything Russian historians said. At this point it does not say anything about his professional merits (which are based on single peer-reviewed book and unchecked ability to write Estonian schoolbooks as he pleases), but it does say a lot about his confrontational approach toward the Russian historical school. That's why I suggested to check other's opinion about the Russian historians. RJ CG 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

@The Russian Federation's original position incorrectly classifies the members 'Nazis'@ Could you clarify why Russian Federation's position is INCORRECT? I would like to delete this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Depesha (talk • contribs) 05:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

rename?
I'm not going to do it right now, because of the AN/I thread on this article, but it really needs a rename. The proper title (which matches the lede of the article) should be Erna long-range reconnaissance group ("reconnaissance", not "recce"). If there is no opposition, I'll wait until the AN/I thread is archived and perform the move.  Horologium  (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)