Talk:Estonian War of Independence

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

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: --Halibutt 13:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * March 1919
 * December 1919
 * June 1920
 * August 1920


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


 * "aggression of the Baltische Landeswehr" Why is this aggression? So the Landsweer, quite in alliance with local Baltic nationalists, fought against the Bolsheviks, but against this background a conflict broke out between the Germans and local nationalists, but there was no aggression 37.54.230.242 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

You're wrong, Victor, there's no special attitude towards the facts. Just stating the obvious point: Estonian army moved across the border of Russia to strengthen the defence. It was not an attempt to attack or conquer Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.181 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 -- TheFE ARgod (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)

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:, ,. 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)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Estonian Liberation War → Estonian War of Independence — To reflect common English usage, based on the discussion above & the sources below. Evv 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .

Survey - Support votes

 * 1) Support as nominator. - Evv 12:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Estonian Defence Forces also use Independence War. However, in Estonian and Finnish it's almost always called Freedom War. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support-clearly most popular name of conflict in English.--Staberinde 16:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Evv's proofs are pretty conclusive.--Aldux 13:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Estonia was already "liberated" by the Imperial German army. -- Petri Krohn 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support- Another great move request from Evv. Well spotted! Asterion talk 14:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, any credit should go to Irpen, Pudeo and Staberinde in the "Title" section above :-) Best regards, Evv 21:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

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)

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)

Prelude to peace
One very motivated IP editor, 206.186.8.130, recently replaced whole "Prelude to Peace" section with his own variant, which consists of carefully picked sentences from analysis of Royal Navy's operations in Baltics. Although all this seems to be basically correct, I have a feeling that this source has a bit too narrow view to Estonian War of Independence and focuses too much to Britain's politics and actions, leaving out many important events for Estonia, so I'd revert this section fully to it's previous version, maybe using one or two bits from this current version, but I can already see where it could lead us. So, instead of edit warring, your ideas (and no soapboxing, please)? Ptrt (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is not all-encompassing, but it is verifiable (unless previous version, which was written in political leaflet's language and accompanied by unverifiable reference to printed book) and seem to be pretty technical. Exactly the type of analysis all East European articles should be based upon (but rarely are). Not opinionated political propaganda, generated by one of warring sides, but 3rd look, cold and impartial (as it could be, Rushton seem to harbour no warm and fuzzy feelings toward Bolsheviks, which is not a sin here). I'm wondering, is it repeated references to Estonia's readiness to cut separate agreement with Commies to get any kind of recognition which raised an ire of Estonian editors? 206.186.8.130 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with printed sourced, as long as they are from respected authors and respected publications. Yes, online sources are more convenient to verify, but these times it's really hard to find really respectable online source, unfortunately it seems that half of Wikipedia is already sourced with references from online more-or-less yellow media and that's really not a way to build encyclopedia. Your source is cold and impartial analysis, I don't have a word to say against it's impartiality or reliability, but it does not focus to Estonian War of Independence, but to overall British actions in whole Baltics, missing everything not connected with Royal Navy's actions. It's unfortunate that you are unable to discuss without trying to provocate or bait other editors, but I'm replying your question anyway - no, it's not connected, did you manage to read up to that point where is written that Estonia actually reached to agreement with those No Commies and Estonians are even proud about it.. and bringing out Hungarian communist mediation offer could be very well true, but from your source we can't see, what circumstances made them to make such an offer (thinking about the time - I can guess that Hungarian communists were guided directly from Moscow, so that fact actually proves that Russia was seeking for peace negotiations) and why this offer was rejected (yes, Admiral Cowan did threaten to leave - but we can see that in the end on that year peace negotiations started anyway, despite the similar opposition from British forces) Ptrt (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You lightheartedly reject printed source here, but advocate it here. Edits are within 1/2 hour from each other. You did manage to amuse me. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Credits are fully yours, mister: it was you who added that totally unverifiable one-page printed source, without author's full name, without publisher information and then came here to complain about credibility and verifiability of printed sources (which coincidentally has all the required details for verification). And you don't see any difference, do you? Ptrt (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your lack of command of Russian language is understandable, but it does not give you right to bash sources you are unable to read. Author's name is Маамяги, and book (most likely memoirs) had been published by Мысль publisher (big Moscow publisher specializing in literarute dealing with humanity, history, philosophy etc.). 206.186.8.130 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered you at Talk:Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian). Ptrt (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, did I get it right: emotional opinionated claims such as allegedly fearing the loss of independence would be that you'd call, Exactly the type of analysis all East European articles should be based upon?? Well, I'm sorry but I don't share your opinion and think that articles should cite facts more and opinions less. In case you'd like to keep this opinionated claim in the article, please cite in the text that it comes from a MA degree student school paper. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. and is it just me or...? if the claim made any sense it would be OK I guess but I'm just not getting it how come the Estonians were afraid of loosing the independence but were not afraid to disarm and intern the Russian White Army who allegedly threatened the independence? Or am I missing something?--Termer (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me remind to unsuspected wikipedians (who may mistake you for white knight keeper of neutrality), that you was perfectly fine with baseless assumptions in the old "Prelude to peace" section, as soon as they painted picture of brave Estonians nobly beating subhuman Red Russians. And you have your gut tied in the knot now, when a professional military analyst makes well argumented assumption (supported by his analysis of previous actions of Estonian government). You want me to explicitly say that this is opinion of professional American military historian, who's area of interest includes 1918-1920 events in regions surrounding Baltic Sea? I'll be happy to do that. And it is just you, as internment of beaten and potentially hostile troops (and Rushton is seemingly unaware of Estonian expropriation of White's supply depots, set by British, if you want me to add this juicy bit too) makes perfect sense. You see, Reds bloodied them well, but they could recover... 206.186.8.130 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * RG CJ, your current edits do not reflect what the sources say. There is no conflicting interpretations on the events that lead to the peace treaty. Rauch, an established historian gives a detailed account, while Ruston, a grad student, gives a brief partial account. You attempt to synthesise Rushton's account into something else, going into detail about Estonian's disarming of the White Russians, then jumping into "Each Baltic State began separate negotiations with Bolshevist Russia for peace in the second half of 1919" missing all the detail about how the negotiations were started, which Rauch explains. The only real detail Ruston gives is the mention of the Hungarian communists offering to mediate, Rauch also mentions this too, and adds further details about how the Hungarian communists got involved. These edits of yours are bordering on tendatious. Martintg (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you commented on me instead of the content in the beginning of your post. Regarding the brave or afraid Estonians, I don't think this should be a part of the discussion here or the article. And no, the ref doc is very clear, it's a paper from NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL.--Termer (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Casualties
In this page, it is mentioned that Estonian Army lost 6127 soldiers during the war as dead. (Metsamees (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While it sounds more realistic (bigger numbers of casualties normally are), I could not find a solid source on the internet stating that. The article deserves a more solid source than a speech by the Commander-in-Chief of the Military of Estonia or an article by Postimees. Probably a direct inquiry from the Sõjahaudade Hoolde Liit for a relevant publication is in order. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents listed in Infobox
Ingrian National People’s Committee and German Ober Ost are mentioned as belligerents, are they being given undue weight given that they are not even mentioned in the main text? I'm not aware of the extent of the role of the Ingrian National People’s Committee, but the German Ober Ost were involved for only one single day as far as I know, so inclusion into the infobox seems to give them more weight than due. --Martintg (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Battle of Narva (1918) was the decisive battle in the initial phase of the war and involved 6000 Reds against 750 Estonians and 500 Germans.
 * The Ingrian battalion added legitimacy to the Estonian cause, showing that the Estonian side was not simply applying defensive measures by offensive means but also defending an Ingrian national cause. This deserves a short paragraph in the text. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly does, at present there is no details about this in the text. --Martintg (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One day is approximately the distance that separated the 7th Red Army from Tallinn.
 * Oh my, if Red Army had advanced 34 km in a day, then Tallinn would had fell around 5th december. Also I am not really aware what was so "decisive" about battle of Narva? Superior Soviet forces pushed Estonian-German defenders out as expected in such situation, 2 months later Narva was already recaptured.--Staberinde (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that Germany or the German Ober Ost was a belligerent in the Estonian War of Independence is a bit far out. The fact that there were still Germans around defending their positions in Narva deserves mentioning of course but it didn't have much to do with the war this article is about. The fact is the Germans while pulling out from Estonia did everything in their power not to leave any useful military equipment around. I need to look it up but as I recall it, a large amount of the German cannons and other weapons for example were simply damaged rather than handing those over to the Estonian provisional government. The Ingrian battalion however needs to be clearly part of the story. Also the chapter about the Pavel Bermondt-Avalov affair is still missing from the article.--Termer (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is the business with Pavel Bermondt-Avalov? In current form he doesnt really make much sense in infobox as I dont think he officially represented Niedra's government. If Estonian armoured trains action at Riga against his forces is importnant enough then we should add West Russian Volunteer Army to combatants, and if it isn't then we should just remove Bermondt.--Staberinde (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, there is an annoying double standard for the contents of the infobox. We either list only people and entities that are discussed in the text (and remove Avalov) or add content about topics that are not presented in the current form of the article but should be there and probably will be in the future (and keep Avalov and restore Ingria).
 * Concerning Avalov's flag, I agree, the West Russian Volunteer Army was not controlled by any government nor subordinated to any larger armies and was a paramilitary force. Therefore, perhaps the most correct thing to do would be not to include a flag at all? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, first The Ingrian battalion, correct me if I'm wrong but it didn't exist as an independent entity, it was still under the command of the Estonian Army, meaning Laidoner?..meaning it wasn't a separate belligerent in the conflict? Unlike Avolov whose goal was to become the next Russian tsar and commanded his private army compiled with White-Russian/German troops independently. I don't mind adding the Ingrian battalion into the infobox but once it happens why stop there? Should the similar units within the Estonian Army, the Baltic-German, Swedish, Finnish and Danish units and their commanders also be listed in the infobx? Because it doesn't make sense to add just one 'ethnic unit' since there were more of those.--Termer (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pretty tricky part. Finnish, Swedish and Danish volunteers and Estonian Commune weren't really separate belligerents either.--Staberinde (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Checklist?
I've been watching this back and forth... Perhaps a checklist to work through who appears in the box?

* At a minimum for " merit Infobox inclusion ", the 3 items above it need to be a "YES" and there needs to be a commander. If all those conditions are met, then we can decide if that also means the belligerent is significant enough to appear in the Infobox. Does this make sense? Does it help? Does it need any other attributes? We could then keep the checklist around for future use/discussion and as reference for anyone new coming along. It might look like using up a lot of space, but in the end it might take less space adn effort if it focuses the discussion and flags work that needs to be done to the article. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my, isn't it overcomplicating whole thing a bit? ;) Anyway I wouldn't consider that if something is mentioned in article or not very critical factor because article definitely isn't "finalized product" currently. I would say that question with infobox is that do we try to have wide coverage over all factions(ingerians, communist puppet governments, bermontians etc.) or do we try to keep it down to basics and avoid confusing situation with minor players. Commanders should be probably finalized after we have figured out who will be combatants. I am personally starting to lean more towards "minimalistic" desing of infobox, including only major forces. Infobox is meant to give good overview and I really think that trying to include everything simply works against that objective in such relatively confusing conflict as this war. So I would suggest Estonia+White Russia+Latvia+Royal Navy vs Soviet Russia vs Pro-German government of Latvia. Less important participants like Ingerians, Estonian Commune, foreing volunteers and Bermontians should be mentioned in article but not added to infobox. Also maybe it would be more accurate to call Yudenich forces "Northwest Army" instead of very generalized "White Russia"?--Staberinde (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with Staberinde here, although it does not entirely solve the problem. We still do not have criteria for being a major player or not. The only obvious listings are Estonia, Soviet Russia, Baltic nobility and one of each of their respective supreme commanders. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be actually one possible version that would fit with scope of conflict, which seems to be generally limited to fighting by Estonia and forces under its direct command. For example Yudenich attack on Petrograd isn't really part of this war in my opinion. On other hand Northwest army, Latvia(after restoring Ulmanis), and Royal Navy on Baltic, were all pretty big players who directly affected situation of this war as they practically bordered Estonia and fought same enemy.--Staberinde (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Where we're in agreement we don't need a checklist, where we're not, it (or at least the items in question) can help focus the discussion. Just a suggestion. (Been doing too many spreadsheets lately!) V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that there is serious disagreement here. Currently I am personally completely undecided between, including only Estonia, Soviet Russia and Landeswehr & co, and adding Latvia, Northwest Army and Royal Navy to them, as both choices are pretty reasonable in my opinion. So I am wondering what others think about it.--Staberinde (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * == Strengths in Infobox ==

As we are already talking about infobox, I would say that the way currently strengths of forces are represented doesn't really give accurate picture for someone who doesn't know quite a bit about this war already without reading article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you specify what exactly is wrong and what would be the correct numbers? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont mean that numbers are exactly wrong, I am pretty sure that they represent strengths of forces on certain time moments. Problem is that these figures are properly informative only if numbers for different sides actually matches situation that was on front at some certain moment. Currently it looks like there was pretty strong Estonian+White Russian+voluneers, when there were also strong soviets, and finally supertiny pro-german government of Latvia. In real situation Estonian-Baltic German forces on front were pretty similar, Finnish volunteers fought on early half when Estonian army wasn't full strength yet, White Russians maxed out later on their attack at Petrograd which had only very limited Estonian support, and Soviet figure seems to be from final battles under Narva then White Russians had collapsed and foreing volunteers left. I am not really sure that we can give accurate overview of strengths in infobox, especially without making it extremely long. Maybe it would be better to remove those figures from there completely and have all explaining of forces involved on different stages of war in articles text? If there would be strengths in infobox, then they probably should be in similar form like Polish-Soviet War has.--Staberinde (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest these moments would be? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, beginning of fighting and time of final battles under Narva before peace would be logical picks.--Staberinde (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for the Soviets and Estonians, but the strengths of the Baltic Germans were zero for these moments. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, which exactly proves my point that using infobox for showing strengths is pretty problematic, especially due limitations in room. If infobox can't be used for giving accurate overview of forces involved, then it shouldn't be used for that purpose.--Staberinde (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I recently changed the strength of the Baltic nobility forces so that the Estonian/Soviet/Baltic nobility are 80,000/160,000/52,000. Are you still saying it gives such a wrong impression on the actual relations between the forces that the 'Strength' row should be blanked entirely? Is it not overreacting? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How exactly we got baltic germans from 9500 to 52,000? Also actually it currently reads 80,000+25,650+2000+1490+200/160,000/52,000. And I think that North Latvian Brigade was bigger than 1400, and wasn't Finnish force more closer to 4000? I personally really feel that it would be better to give figures about forces involved just in text of article.--Staberinde (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 9500 is the number of the Baltic nobility forces in the Landeswehr War as given by the Estonian War Museum. 52,000 is the number of the West Russian Volunteer Army during the offensive of Bermondt-Avalov. You are welcome to provide numbers from alternative sources (as well as on the Finns and Latvians). And although the Baltic Germans indeed outnumbered the Estonian forces directly against them, the Estonian Army counting those engaged against the Soviets or deployed in the rear, numbered a few times more than the Baltic German forces through the entire course of the war. The deletion of the row would serve as a major loss for the infobox and would be entirely out of purpose. Opinions from other users are welcome. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * a major loss for the infobox
 * Aren't we getting a bit dramatic? Infobox is a tool to convey information. Due its limitations(it gets too long very damn fast) it can give only relatively simplistic overview. Estonian War of Independence on other hand is pretty damn complicated conflict, with sizes of forces growing, foreing volunteers coming and later leaving, rise and fall of white russian forces, baltic german situation etc. We cannot dumb down whole conflict just so that we could get fancy infobox where all the fields are filled. Estonian combat against West Russian Volunteer Army was limited to 2 armoured trains for about 2 weeks, it makes very little sense to use figures of Bermontian forces(that were mostly facing Latvian army) that way.--Staberinde (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dramatic? You're the one proposing to erase stuff, not me. I'm just happy the way it is. There are articles on much more complicated conflicts (take Russian Civil War for instance) which manage to present strengths in the infobox. Just because they fail to convey info on the dynamics of the strengths throughout the conflict, does not mean we can just call the whole thing off. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really consider Russian Civil War infobox anything particularly succesful. Having all fields in infobox filled is fortunately not compulsory. Polish–Lithuanian War doesn't use even commanders and still somehow manages.--Staberinde (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The aim of an infobox in an encyclopaedia article is not to 'manage' in the way you use the term but to summarize information. And the infobox in the Polish–Lithuanian War article fails to do that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some information cannot be simply summarized without making it inaccurate for average reader. There is pretty damn obvious reason why some wars (like World War II) have no strengths in infobox, you just cant summarize everything accurately. Anyway I asked for 3rd opinion from our Latvian friend User:Vecrumba. Although I hope that he wont suggest some checklist again :) --Staberinde (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No checklists this time. :-) Considering the options... V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[od]Template:Infobox_military_conflict suggests to list a maximum of three or four major combatants in the infobox, and if there are more, list them in the text. --Martintg (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC) PS, I might also suggest getting input from WikiProject_Military_history if all else fails. --Martintg (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) As an example, the infobox at Yugoslav Front (World War II) is rather detailed. On the other hand that one is in fact a POV tool, where chetniks are grouped just as Axis forces (like e.g. NDH, correctly placed there). It is not truth, it is half-truth, and presenting them only as Axis troops is clearly WP:UNDUE. Hence, conflict infoboxes are a useful gadget, but can be misused. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do see where strengths can be problematic given the ebbs and flows of all the various parties trampling in particular throughout Estonia and Latvia. I did look at the example mentioned of breakdown by time period, and to me, it seems that would only complicate things in this particular case. My instinct, though, is that strengths would be a good thing for the infobox&mdash;my thought there is to represent the "peak size" of any of the forces/parties mentioned, noting those peaks did not coincide.
 * An option might be to add a bit more detail in the infobox along with the number, for example, for the Soviet forces (if this were the case): "160,000 (peak, winter 1918)" If the peaks are close together chronologically, however, then there's not much value to adding that distinction. If they are a bit more widely separated, then this information would help reinforce the article narrative.
 * With all that said, next time I take a break with a fresh cup of coffee, I'll read through the article at a more leisurely pace and consider how the infobox can best help advance the article content (wearing my "military history task force" hat). :-) V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Would it be possible for someone to list the forces, peak size, and peak time-frame (season and year are good enough) so we can see what that looks like? Thanks! V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you go (according to the Estonian War Museum and Jaan Maide):
 * Estonia: 80,000 January 1920
 * White Russia: 20,000 October 1919
 * Latvia (fighting with the Estonian Army): ? October 1919
 * Finnish volunteers: 3500 January 1919
 * Danish volunteers: 225 April 1919
 * Swedish volunteers: 1 company April 1919
 * Ingria 1 regiment October 1919
 * Soviet Russia 160,000 January 1920
 * Baltic Germans 52,000 October 1919

--Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is another problem with Baltic German figure. Its from West Russian Volunteer Army which was mostly faced by Latvian forces(although it had involvment in Lithuania too). Estonian participation against it was 2 armoured trains for about 2 weeks at October 1919, then Latvian situation under Riga was pretty hard. Most of Estonian fighting against Baltic German forces was actually earlier against Landeswehr and Iron Division which were officially under Niedra's puppet government. To be honest I am not sure if we can label Bermontians as Baltic germans at all, because I think that his forces consisted mostly of Freikorps and White Russians. As far as I know, at the time when Bermont attacked Riga, Baltic Landeswehr was actually fighting against Soviets under command of Harold Alexander.--Staberinde (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The West Russian Volunteer Army was hired by the pro-Baltic German Latvian Government. As far as their involvement in the war is concerned, if we count most of the Bermontians out of the war, so should we do with other armies forces in the rear or not directly involved in combat. And I do not see that as feasible. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we count Bermontians in(which I would prefer to avoid) then there is also another problem, current German casualties figure becomes useless because it applies only for German losses in Landeswehr war, and not Bermontian forces losses. Anyway it looks like Vecrumba wont have time to comment situation here for some time now .--Staberinde (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Until an outside comment will support the deletion of the strengths from the infobox, we will have an estimation listed. You posted the concern of having the Landeswehr+Iron Division July estimate listed, because it was given undue weight against the Estonian strength of the time. I changed the Baltic nobility strength to its max. Once again you are discontented. I know, your suggestion is to delete the strengths but the way things stand now, it is not gonna happen. So stop complaining and suggest a number. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, making Baltic nobility the third belligerent is a bit too far out. There were members of Baltic Nobility in the ranks of the Estonian Army and not everyone was a noble in the Baltische Landeswehr, which by itself if anything should be the third belligerent.--Termer (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Btw, I still think that we should remove strengths from infobox as it doesn't inform very well due volatile nature of the strengths on the front.--Staberinde (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unrepresented strengths inform much worse. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The strength section is about total manpower during the conflict, not about volatility of strengths on the front any given time.--Termer (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Error noticed
There is a glaring error in "References" to the article, pos 4: the years should be 1918--40 (not 1941...). Cf. the vol. 11 of the referred encyclopedia. With best wishes Heido Ots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.145.76 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Britain in Infobox
While Britain provided naval support at the direction of the Estonian high command, the bulk of the conflict was on land between Estonia and the Bolsheviks and the German Landeswehr. There were more Finnish, Latvian and Russian volunteers than Brits in the campaign, they are mentioned in the infobox but we don't include them as formal combatants, the same with Britain. Note that the peace treaty was signed between Estonia and Bolshevik Russia, there was no British signature so Britain wasn't a formal combatant. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see the units section of the infobox and now know what you mean.ChrisWet (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)