Talk:Yevgeny Nikonov

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Demolished Monument of Evgeni Nikonov in Tallinn.jpg

So.... is his story true, not true, or disputable?
So, an editor added a section "Controversy" with this content: There is no documented proof of whether the story behind Nikonov's death was true. The whole story may be based on a propaganda leaflet drawn by Viktor Ivanov and Olga Burova, which depicted a sailor from a boat Minsk being burned by the Germans. In 1943, the leaflet reached a wounded commissar, Grigori Shevchenko, who claimed that the drawing depicted a sailor called Yevgeny Nikonov, whom he knew. Also, on the alleged day of the burning of Yevgeny Nikonov (August 19, 1941), the Germans were not yet in Keila, and the battle for Tallinn started only on the next day. It is also alleged that a former sailor using the name Yevgeny Nikonov has visited the burial site of Yevgeny Nikonov at Maarjamäe sometime in the 1980s, and also later the new burial site in Russia. The story of the heroic death of Nikonov was first published in the newsletter of the Red Baltic Fleet on March 26, 1943. The information about the death of Nikonov appeared in the database of casualties only on April 24, 1943, that is after the story of the heroic death had already been published.

And this has been challenged. So, let's see... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging who added this content a while ago, and the two IPs, 83.143.64.43 and 109.252.201.192 (almost certainly the same user, notified at their talk pages). I don't have an educated opinion on the substance of these edits, but would caution participants not to edit war or make personal attacks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The first reference is just to the propaganda poster. Just the picture, so there's no proof there that somebody didn't draw it yesterday. But even it's legit, it only demonstrates that such a poster existed, and that it depicted a sailor from the Minsk being immolated. That doesn't in and of itself prove that it was the basis for the Yevgeny Nikonov story. It's a possible data point; timing would matter some. The second ref is to the Postimees, which is apparently the flagship newspaper of Estonia. It is in the Opinion ("Arvamus") section tho, written in 2018. I don't Estonian so I'll use google translate to figure it out, near as I can tell it says something like: Ander Asberg: The mystery of the hero story of the Red Sea -- Who was the red sailor Yevgeny Nikonov and how he is connected with Estonia, writes Ander Asberg, a history and maritime enthusiast. [NB: not sure if "entusiast" implies amateur enthusiast, but I guess so -- ed.] With the construction of Reidi Road, the trace of a Soviet-era statue with a dubious background also disappeared from Tallinn. The commemoration of the heroic story of Yevgeny Nikonov of the Red Sea seems to be relevant right now, as recently, on August 19, exactly 77 years have passed since the main event, while on Independence Day 1991, exactly 50 years and one day have passed. In addition, the hero's intermediate place of [interment] on Maarjamäe [Terra Mariana? -- ed.] has just acquired a new general meaning. However, there seems to be no historically proven public version of the hero's story. ...[general background stuff about the battle]... Major General Vladimir Tributs, Commander of the Fleet, and Major General Ivan Nikolayev, Commander of the 10th Rifle Corps, were appointed to lead the defense of Tallinn and with it the main base of the Baltic Fleet. Three protection zones were hastily established around the city, where civilians were also ordered to work. Among other things, land units were formed on the basis of the crews of Soviet warships based in Tallinn, which were directed to strengthen the land front. In those days, more than 10 major warships were stationed in Tallinn - the large cruiser Kirov and the [warships] Leningrad and Minsk. ...[general background stuff about the battle]... A heroic story in retrospect: If the previous paragraph can be called history, then the following story should simply be called a story, given the few possibilities to find adequate verification or control of the relevant factual data. By the end of 1941 (according to some sources) or in 1942 (according to other sources) a leaflet designed by artists Viktor Ivanov and Olga Burova entitled "Remember and avenge!" was circulated on the ships of the Baltic fleet. The poster depicted a sailor from the ship Minsk tied to a tree and set on fire. At the bottom was also a clarifying text that the Germans had tortured and burned sailors from the Minsk, according to stories circulating in the fleet. In the spring of 1943, the leaflet fell into the hands of Grigory Shevchenko, a politician who had lost his leg in battle and reported that the Minsk sailor pictured was torpedo electrician Yevgeny Nikonov, whom he knew. From there, the story of how Nikonov took part in an intelligence mission near Keila near Harku on August 19, 1941, began, and after being wounded in combat contact and losing consciousness, he fell into German hands. The Germans tortured and burned Nikonov alive, but the sailor did not receive important information about the location of the Red Army. After the sailor's call for help, the Red Army, including Shevchenko, cleared the village of the Germans and found and recognized the body of Nikonov. Shevchenko himself was wounded in the same battle, but his report was lost during the naval evacuation. The story attracted the attention of superiors, and even in that same year one of the Minsk's torpedo [batteries?] was named "Nikonov" in honor of the fallen sailor. However, the title of Hero of the Soviet Union was awarded only after the end of the war - on September 3, 1957. ...[etc]... Suspicious facts and versions: The first doubts about the details of the story appeared in the 1970s, when a documentary about Nikonov was made. It turned out that there were no German regular forces in Harku on the day of Nikonov's death, because the attack on Tallinn did not start until August 20 from the front line, which was then located somewhere south of Rapla. When an attempt was made to blame the 20th Estonian SS Division [for what? -- ed.] it turned out that it had not yet been formed. [Can't follow the next sentence, but possibly something like "the documentary doesn't say what what happened next? -- ed.] The hero's grave in Maarjamäe even exhibited the tree on which the hero had allegedly been burned. However, according to the more knowledgeable, the landscapers also had a spare tree ready. The story gained another angle, when in 1980 a veteran named Yevgeny Nikonov, who had really participated in the defense of Tallinn in 1941, had visited Tallinn and "his" grave. Of course, the official Soviet legend was not shaken by all of the above. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and the Estonian regime changed, the former Soviet patriots decided to bury their hero in a more dignified place - his hometown in Vasilyevka, Russia. When the enterprise was carried out in the spring of 1992, it turned out that the grave was empty! To make the ceremony go forward anyway, the soil taken from the grave was taken to Russia by plane. However, in order to clarify the matter later, the "Estonian nationalists" were accused of pre-plundering the grave and even taking the body as a pledge for the purpose of provocation or extortion. In any case, the reburial ceremony took place in Russia, with a real person named Yevgeny Nikonov (who was now a relative of the hero) in attendance. ...[etc]... However, the hero's believers have not been quiet. In order to maintain the truth of the legend (probably also inspired by the Erna Raid organized in Estonia and intended for the eastern neighbor) [a reference to the Erna long-range reconnaissance group, an Estonian Axis unit, I think -- ed.], more recently Erna units [rather than the Germans -- ed.] have been accused of being Nikonov's killers, even dressing in Red Army uniforms. A version has also been put about that the "nationalists" wanted Nikonov to tell them the location of the assets of the state bank located in Tallinn. Of course, there is no information about these events and places in Erna's written history. In addition, the name of Major Hans Hirvelaane, an "essayist" who fought with the German forces in Rapla, has been [mentioned?] In conclusion: Although there are fascinating facts in Nikonov's story, it is extremely likely that it is simply a story initiated by Soviet propaganda artists, then redesigned for some reason by a politician and later adopted by the naval leadership. The bigger goal was probably to valuorize the rather infamous [infamous because incompetent, described elsewhere -- ed.] Tallinn defense operation in retrospect by highlighting the personal heroic story and the inhumanity of the opponents. It could be said that at the beginning of the war, at least in Estonia, the Wehrmacht had not considered the use of such sadistic interrogation methods. Rather, the burning and torture of people alive at that time was carried out here by the representatives of the Soviet Red Party itself. It cannot even be ruled out that the alleged torture and murder of anyone [including the sailor? -- translation unclear] and for whatever reason (such as military action, insurrection, etc.) could have been carried out by the Red Power's own special organs in the rear (the front was tens of kilometers away). It also seems suspicious that it would be possible to obtain important information about Tallinn's defense or even more about the assets of the National Bank from a sailor. However, given all the above circumstances, the confusion and the subsequent fascination, it seems much more likely that the whole story didn't really happen. However, even today, more specific research and proof would be needed to put an end to the saga. Hmmmm. I don't know who Ander Asberg is (FWIW here is another of his articles), but... it's in the Opinion, not the News, section of the paper. That means it probably hasn't been fact checked. It does sound believable. But Asberg doesn't seem to give any sources, so it's just him talking I guess.

The third ref is this Russian paper. It's used to ref the statement "The story of the heroic death of Nikonov was first published in the newsletter of the Red Baltic Fleet on March 26, 1943". I can't even make it out let alone read it, so I dunno. It does have a picture of the poster. Even if it's legit (probably), I guess it's not necessarily proof that the first publication of Nikonov's story was March 26, 1943. It might be, depending on what it says.

The Third ref is this facsimile of a data card which is used to ref the statement "The information about the death of Nikonov appeared in the database of casualties only on April 24, 1943, that is after the story of the heroic death had already been published." It is apparent that the card was made on that date. Whether that is significant I don't know, I'm not up on how the Soviets did this stuff during that time. It does give his date of leaving the Navy (on account of being dead) as August 1941, no day given. This is primary-source original research, but IMO it's legit to buttress claims made elsewhere. Herostratus (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

So...........
So. Well, some things that come to mind right off. For one, it's really hard to sort things out when we're dealing with Russians v Estonians, as one might imagine. We want to be super careful to watch out for bias. This person Ander Asberg is Estonian and some of the ways he puts things indicates to me that he might have an anti-Soviet (and therefore maybe anti-Nikonev-as-hero) lean.

But common sense tells us that Anvers could be right. It's not just Soviets, but every country, which is inclined to sometimes spin things a bit for the sake of propaganda. I wouldn't be shocked if the Soviets had made this up. And after all I think we have for Nikonov's story (not his postmortem perambulations, but the story of his martyrdom) is official Soviet sources, is that not right? Which.... is not that great. (I have no opinion about whether the stuff regarding dates of publications and starts of offensives etc. shows anything, and it'd be original research to go very far down that rabbit hole.)

What I really want to know, is this something that people actually talk about in bars, or that's been mentioned by actual journalists, or is it just Ander Asberg spouting off stuff he came up with? 99% sure it's not, but we don't have any proof of that -- yet. If it's not just Anvers, I think it'd be appropriate to include a couple sentences to the effect that some people (rightly or wrongly) think that Nikonev's story is made up. IF AND WHEN we can come up with a source besides Asberg. Herostratus (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright. No immediate response, so I redacted the material to two sentences which basically say "some people dispute the story" without saying much more. I suppose that's the best thing, maybe not. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Explanation
@ Herostratus: I'm not happy with the changes - the facts, which have been presented in the links are important. In my view it's the timeline that matters - Soviet official story is far off from the truth and facts, and you can actually see that the story is evolving as time passes, more and more details have been added from a retell to a retell, but no new facts of any kind emerge, just some more propaganda fantasies.

Facts:

1. The alleged death occured in 1941, but the official record of death comes only 2 years later. So for two years nobody noticed that a man was missing.

2. The story itself emerges only two years later - official records of death are made only after the story has been published (i.e the cited article - it is the earliest publication until proven otherwise - if You question it, then prove me wrong and find another, which is earlier. Even the Soviet sources tell that it is the first mentioning). There is no contemporary source (i.e from 1941) that would have mentioned the incident - no documents, articles, photos (not even of the aftermath), even no memoires (again, prove me wrong, if You can).

3. The incident could not have taken place in the location mentioned - other sources state that at the alleged time of death, the Germans were far away from the location of the alleged death. Attack on Tallinn started August 20th, and first larger town in that direction - Rapla (50km from Keila) was taken only on 21th.

4. Story of the politruk changes as time passes: at first he just recognises Nikonov from a poster two years later in a hospital (in the cited article) - I hope we can agree that this is not the best source for identification of a person, especially if it has been drawn thousands of kilometres away by some propaganda artists two years later. Then the story evolves in other retells, e.g the given politruk becomes a leader of a recce squad, to which Nikonov belonged - Nikonov goes missing and they find him tied to a tree. Next retell he hears last words of Nikonov - "Comrades, avenge me!" and he himself cuts Nikonov down from a tree, etc. I didn't include all the iterations of the story, as they are of a little value to the whole picture, only the most important controversies are mentioned.

5. You can see the fog of propaganda on Russian Wiki: it states that the other side was not the Germans, but Estonians from a diversion group Erna 1, under obersturmbannführer Hans Hirvelaan. This is wrong on so many levels, that one can hardly count them: Hans Hirvelaan was not in SS, in fact Estonians could not join Waffen-SS before 1942, as officers they could serve even later; Hans Hirvelaan did not participate in Erna, but was an Estonian partisan (a Major in the former Estonian Army) who organised an anti-Soviet battallion in Rapla; Hirvelaan fought all the time some 50 km to SE of Keila around Rapla, where he was killed on the next day of the alleged killing of Nikonov while trying to take Rapla; Erna 1 itself did not come anywhere near Keila, acting on the other side of Tallinn (i.e East side, as opposed to Keila which is to the West of Tallinn) more than 60 km away from Keila, in addition it was mostly active weeks before August 19th.

P.S: I found an article from a recent (April 4th 2020) scientific journal "Keel ja Kirjandus" ("Language and Literature", has an English summary) by Irina Belobrovtseva (a Russian), who has tracked the story back to a propagandist Vsevolod Vishnevski, who first made an entry of a similar story to his diary on 25th August 1941 (diary was published in 1944). Didn't publish the story then though. So I can see a path: 1. propagandist makes up a story (cannot be real as the dates of different events do not match - see above), 2. another propaganist make a poster, 3. poster gets into the hands of a politruk, who "recognises" a familiar face and gives nameless victim a name, 4. a story is published, now with a name, 5. story gets so out of hand that nothing can be stated for sure any more. https://dea.digar.ee/cgi-bin/dea?a=d&d=AKkeeljakirjandus202004.2.5  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gertsch (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

So You can see, that Soviet accounts are at least to the same extent dubious as Anvers, but probably much more. Gertsch 11:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)