Talk:Estonian anti-German resistance movement 1941–1944

Perhaps a few too many wikilinks?

Does anyone else get the sense that this article has far too many Wikilinks? For just 3 lines of text, it feels too much like a sea of blue. And then, to top that off, there's the sea of red (the Red Sea perhaps?) that follows with the Wikified names that don't exist. Thoughts?--Metros232 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Soviet diversants in Estonia during WW II, unknown names in Estonian history. What about pro-English resistance (so-called "third way")?

Jüri Uluots wasn't a resistance fighter, but a Nazi-collaborator

Jüri Uluots supported the illegal conscription of Estonian citizens to the German SS-forces. Uluots delivered a radio address on February 7, 1944 that implored all able-bodied men born from 1904 through 1923 to report for German military service in the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian).

He wasn't any resistance figter, but a Nazi-collaborator. Of course he didn't fight the Nazis, but he helped the Nazis to be constitued the SS-division.

He was an enemy of the resistance fighters who fought for free Estonia.

To represent Jüri Uluots as a resistance fighter is a scoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.72.142 (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the Estonian National Committee urged people to fight the Soviet offensive into Estonia. Nevertheless, they were imprisoned one and a half months later by the Reichskomissariat, charged with a conspiracy against the German puppet government. So the representation here is utterly relevant. The attempt to re-establish the Republic of Estonia was absolutely an act against the German administration. --Erikupoeg (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In Estonia, the pre-war Prime minister Uluots switched his stand on mobilization in Febrary 1944 when the Soviet Army reached the Estonian border. At the time the Estonian units under German control had about 14,000 men. Counting on a German debacle, Uluots considered it imperative to have large numbers of Estonians armed, through any means...Uluots even managed to tell it to the nation through the German-controlled radio: Estonian troops on Estonian soli have " a significance much wider than what I could and would be able to disclose here". The nation undrestood and responded. 38,000 registered ..Six border-defense regiments were formed, headed by Estonian officers, and the SS Division received reinforcements, bringing the total of Estonian units up to 50,000 or 60,00 men. During the whole period at least 70,000 Estonian joined the German army, more than 10,000 may have died in action...about 10,000 reached the West after the war ended.

Misiunas, Romuald (1993). The Baltic States, Years of Dependence, 1940-1990. University of California Press. p. 60. ISBN 0520082281. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

FYI:WP:RS should do the talking on Wikipedia instead of personal opinions. Any such unsourced strong opinions like by 82.131.72.142 are simply going to be removed in the future pr WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--Termer (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What this article is about?

The article presents no examples of Estonian resistance against Nazi (except few days in 1944, when some Estonian patriots decided to fill the vacuum between German withdrawal and Soviet arrival). The only thing I learned from this article is that some people existed in Estonia, who were not satisfied with the Nazi regime, and even were arrested for that. However, I see no ground to call that "resistance", because it is absolutely unclear what this "resistance" consisted in. Please, provide more solid evidences, otherwise I see no ground for the article to exist.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If this edit is a response, I do not found it satisfactory. According to the article, one of the major action of the anti-Nazi resistance leader was to call Estonian to join Waffen SS. I admit that the genuine goal of this step was to arm people, however, I see no evidences that the armament obtained by the Estonian was turned against the Germans, and I see no ground for speaking about Estonian anti-Nazi resistance in 1941-44. I expect the article to present more serious evidences of real anti-Nazi resistance activity of the Estonians, otherwise I will have to draw the attention of community to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I still see no examples of pro-independence anti-German resistance, because the call to join Waffen SS, that de facto provided Nazi with more than 70,000 troops who fought bravely during the Battle of Narva and inflicted immense losses on the Soviet Red Army, and who continued to fight on the German side late is hardly an example of resistance. This is called "pro-Nazi propaganda", and should be presented as such. Regarding the arrests, the fact of these arrests are hardly an evidence of any anti-German activity. Let me remind you that in 1940-41 many Estonians were arrested by NKVD for "anti-Soviet activity". Does anybody treats this charge seriously?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think these are valid concerns and the article is off-topic. If anybody has the Estonia 1940–1945 reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity, I suggest to check how it deals with the resistance in 1944. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't realised a discussion was developing on talk. Ofcourse there are many forms of resistance, it doesn't necessarily need to be armed, for example draft dodging is a form of resistance that was widely practiced up to 1944 and Uluots resisted calls by the Germans to participate in the Estonian Self-Administration. In any case Professor David James Smith speaks of "underground resistance circles", so to claim that the Estonian people were uniformly pro-Nazi throughout the war would be called "pro-Soviet propaganda". Ofcourse the article needs more development, but I think Paul's criticism, while I understand what he is saying, seems unduly strident. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are many different forms of resistance, for instance, a moral resistance. However, your understanding of "resistance", which, judging by your edits, includes a direct collaboration and co-belligerence with the occupants, seems to be too loose and liberal. We judge about the people by their deeds, not by their intentions, and, whatever noble the intentions of the members of Estonian "resistance" were, the most adequate term to describe the results of their activity (as they are described in this particular article) is collaboration. You should either add some real examples of resistance, or rename/delete the article, which implies that some real anti-Nazi resistance movement existed in Estonia during the whole period German occupation. Again, I can admit that that was probably the case, and that is why I placed no tags and started no AfD. The only thing I request is to bring the article in accordance with the title, or vise versa, because currently the article (except its rudimentary "Pro-Soviet..." section) tells about anti-German moods, about semi-voluntary collaboration, however, it gives no convinsing examples of resistance against Nazi occupiers (except the very brief period of German withdrawal, when the "resistance" hardly accelerated this process).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The last edit hasn't provided any examples of real resistance, just of growth of anti-German moods in the society. WWII resistance, e.g. French resistance, included propaganda, partisan warfare, sabotage, espionage, etc. Please, provide any example of such activity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that's your personal opinion of what you think "resistance" means. But the reliable sources cited speak of an undeground resistance movement that existed during the period, you seem to be denying that such a movement existed. And also I object your attempt to impose a WP:DEADLINE upon the development of this article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I impose no deadline, however, the article, whose title does not reflect its content should be tagged accordingly and, if the issue will not be resolved in close future, renamed or deleted. Regarding my personal opinion, I do not have to prove negative, however, I expect you to prove that the resistance in Estonia did exist, and that resistance was not nominal only. I also expect that per WP:DUCK the acts of collaboration to be described accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already cited several sources that mention the underground resistance movement, so I don't understand the basis of your objection here. You seem to be saying what Profs. von Rauch and Smith published via university press is wrong and that no underground resistance movement existed? As far as I can tell the title accurately reflects the topic, being properly disambiguated from the 1915-18 anti-German resistance movement. As far as your proposal to describe acts of collaboration, that would be off-topic and imply some kind of ideolgical based POV, if not synthesis, not reflected in the sources cited in the article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC) --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I never proposed to describe the examples of collaboration, I just proposed to use correct terminology. Currently, the article describes only two concrete actions of the National Committee of the Republic of Estonia: a support of conscription (which provided Nazi with about 70,000 valuable troops, which fought bravely on the German side from 1944 till the end of the war) and the order to leave (which had been given to the German troops when they had already been withdrawing from Estonia because of their defeat in the Eastern Front). If the former act is an example of Estonian resistance, then Vichy France should be considered as a leader of European anti-Nazi resistance. With regard to the latter, the claim that seizure of the government buildings in Toompea and the order to the German forces to leave allow us to speak about Estonian resistance in 1941-44 cannot be treated seriously. BTW, I am wondering if any fighting between German troops and Estonians took place in actuality. If yes, that would be absolutely ridiculous: what was the need for the German troops to hold the buildings in the city that they were abandoning? I would say the opposite: it is natural to expect that the Germans considered the Estonian rebels as their rearguards, who made their withdrawal more safe. Your failure to provide serious examples suggests that you simply appeared to be unable to find anything. That is sad, because I thought that in addition to massive collaboration more or less serious resistance movement existed in Estonia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul, take it up with Professor Smith, et al. Write them a letter and tell them they got it all wrong and they should immediately publish an addendum to correct their mistakes as you see it. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin. Please provide concrete examples of anti-Nazi resistance (anti-Nazi propaganda, fighting, etc.) I was able to find only one concrete example. Malksoo, citing Laar's book writes that:

"However, it became apparent that Tallinn could not be defended. The Estonian Admiral Pitka tried to organize resistance against the advancing Soviet forces, but the powers were clearly unequal. Between Estonian and retreating German units, several smaller exchanges of fire took place, as the Estonians attempted to take power in Tallinn and its surroundings. Estonian fighters succeeded in gaining control over several armouries, but the Germans conquered the headquarters of admiral Pitka in Tallinn." (LAURI MÄLKSOO. Professor Uluots, the Estonian Government in Exile and the Continuity of the Republic of Estonia in International Law. Nordic Journal of International Law 69: 289–316, 2000)

Regarding the seizure of the government buildings, the event is described as follows:

"On September 20, 1944, in connection with the proclamation of the new government, the National Committee of the Republic of Estonia decided to end its activities. In the afternoon of September 20, 1944, Estonian soldiers took down the German swastika flag flying atop the Tall Hermann tower in Tallinn – a place which has historically been the symbol of state power in Estonia – and replaced it with the Estonian national flag." (ibid)

Incidentally, he describes the decision to support conscription as follows:

"As the reconquering of Estonia by the Red Army became more and more likely in 1944, Uluots was facing a dilemma that he himself called “one of the most difficult decisions in the whole history of Estonian people”. In February 1944, Nazi Germany had announced a conscription for Estonian men – an act that, as an occupying power, Germany had no entitlement to according to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land. In order to keep another rule of Stalinist terror away from Estonia, Uluots finally decided to publicly support the conscription of Estonian draftees to the German army. As a result of that decision, Soviet propaganda regularly attacked Uluots, calling him “understrapper of the Germans” and collaborationist. Uluots himself summed up his judgment of the situation in a radio speech on 19 August 1944. From the following digest of this speech, given by Uluots, one can learn the justifications for his decision to support conscription to the German army:

"(. . . ) In the ongoing war, many nations are on one side with others, with whom they have no common interests or goals. Estonia has nothing to do with the war of the great powers. We are attacked from the East without reason and we defend our country and its freedom. This is our only reason in war. The events of 1940 and 1941 demonstrate what will wait for us. If Russia should occupy our country once again, our nation will be destroyed and scattered to the plains of Siberia. (. . . )War comes to the end.We can approximately guess, how it ends. But the war may yet bring several surprises. In this general final game, there are detailed problems that we cannot foresee. But we have our own problem which demands the effort and unity of the whole people. We have to defend our people and liberty. We must try to keep the country free until the peace treaty or at least until armistice. Only this can keep us from destruction. We wage war only for self-defence. We do not have other goals in connection with the World War, and the one who talks differently, lies. In this fight, we have to take into account the realities and we have the right to accept the assistance from Germans and we carry on war together with Germans. There is no second or third possibility. But our goal is the protection of our people and country against an unjustified attack."

(ibid, my emphasis) I have no idea how this Uliot's speech can be presented as an act of anti-German resistance. To claim that would be a crime against a common sense. Clearly, Uluots' decision was to accept the help from Germans (or provide a help for Germans) to fight Stalinism (or, taking into account the WWII realities, to oppose to the Allied war efforts by helping Germany). Independently of his real intentions, he had done exactly what General Vlasov did, and it is impossible to describe that as an act of resistance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional sources. If you have a problem with the interpretation of Uluot's decision, take it up with Rein Taagepera, I believe you can reach him at the University of California. I'm sorry, but I'm not even thinking about fulfilling your demands I present evidence of "concrete examples of anti-Nazi resistance", as I'm working on this article at my own pace. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. The edit you made describe Estonian anti-Soviet resistance, and only tangentially relate to the anti-German resistance. Of course, minor fighting during last few days of German occupation allow as to speak about the Estonian resistance against the Germans, whose assistance they initially accepted for protection of the Estonian territory against advancing Soviet troops. However, that is insufficient to speak about 1941-1944 resistance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Never the less, as I said already numerous times, it is a fact that a number of reliable sources speak of a resistance movement that existed during that period. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul is correct, little of this article speaks of anti-German resistance. It is about actions only during 1944, so the article should be renamed accordingly, unless Martin expects to find material for the earlier period. Purely anti-Soviet actions should be removed. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I expect to find additional material, obviously. From my reading of the sources so far, there appears to have been three groups within Estonian society, the Nazi collaborators represented by the Estonian Self-Government headed by Hjalmar Mäe who advocated an eventual union with Greater Nazi Germany, the Soviet collaborators who advocated a Soviet union (who mostly fled in any case to the Soviet Union in 1941) and third group represented by the National Committee of the Republic of Estonia which advocated a return to independence and resisted the aims of both Nazi and Soviet collaborators. While the National Committee was formed in 1944, the constituent groups that formed it were in existance prior to that, according to what I have read. Ofcourse Soviet historiography tended to associate the pro-independence nationalists with Nazi collaborators because it served their party political purposes in doing so, for obvious reasons. While some people today have adopted the Soviet world view and even defend it, no serious scholar lends much weight to Soviet historiography except as a curious topic of study[1] --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The more I read on that subject the more examples of collaboration I see. Thus, the "White Book", which carefully avoids the term "collaboration", describe the "anti-German resistance" as follows.

"Minister Jüri Uluots, who had survived the Soviet occupation, presented a diplomatic-political memorandum requesting the sovereignty of Estonia to General von Küchler, Commander of the 18th German Army. This was the start of activities aimed at achieving national independence, which soon transformed into a resistance fight uniting nationally minded forces, because new occupation authorities had no intention of allowing Estonia to become independent, although the Self Government of Estonia was formed. In the beginning of war in 1941, many people believed that the state of Estonia would be restored and many resistance fighters who had taken part in the summer battles went to the Eastern Front as volunteers in the German Army to help to defeat the communist state that had mercilessly butchered Estonian people and to free the Estonian citizens who had been deported to Russia. The historians have calculated that the total number of Estonian men who fought as volunteers in the German Army during the German occupation was about 20,000. In February 1942, 20,867 men were in military duty."

In other words, the sole activity of the "resistance fighters" was their participation in the Wehrmacht's fight against the USSR. This is called collaboration, and by no means can that be characterised as "resistance".

"In the beginning of the German occupation, Estonian democratic forces started to consolidate with the aim of fighting for the restoration of independence of Estonia with all means. People had faith in the Atlantic Charter of 14 August 1941, which provided for the restoration of independence of all occupied countries after the war. In this extremely complicated situation of an occupied country, Estonian politicians who had escaped repressive measures were able to come to an agreement and keep to it. Observing the Constitution of 1938 formally still in force, they formed the underground National Committee of the Republic of Estonia, which convened on 14 February 1944. The central figure among the democratic forces was the former Prime Minister Jüri Uluots who was pursuant to the Constitution the Acting Head of State instead of the President who was in prison in Russia. In February 1944, when the Soviet troops reached Narva and a new Soviet occupation became a reality, Jüri Uluots’ radio interview was the first statement by a national-minded Estonian politician in support of the mobilisation proclaimed by the Germany-appointed Estonian Self Government. He called upon the men of Estonia to enlist in the army and defend their fatherland against the danger coming from the East. The call was received with enthusiasm and the mobilisation brought together more men than previously expected. Three Estonian battalions — the 1st Battalion of the 45th Regiment, the Tallinn Regiment formed of the mobilised, and the Nord Army Group — were hastily brought to Narva where they stopped the invaded enemy in the battles held in February."

Again, no mention of any anti-German resistance, just direct collaboration.

"By the end of April 1944 the German SD found out about the underground national committee and mass arrests began. Fortunately, those who were arrested first succeeded to warn their co-fighters who managed to flee. Because of lack of evidence, some of the arrested persons were freed by August 1944. The National Committee of the Republic of Estonia continued its activities and on 1 August 1944 published the Manifest to the People of Estonia, in which it proclaimed itself the executor of the state power until the constitutional organs of power resume their functions. On the initiative of the National Committee, an agreement was reached on bringing the Infantry Regiment No 200 that consisted of Estonians, home from the front in Finland. Before the collapse of the German front, 1752 soldiers voluntarily returned from Finland to continue fighting in Estonia. They arrived on 19 August 1944. One battalion was immediately taken to the Tartu front, where their counter-attack in the Pupastvere battle stopped the enemy’s breakthrough and stabilised the front for three more weeks. Their desperate resistance at the front gave tens of thousands of Estonians the time to flee to the West. About 80,000 citizens of Estonia who otherwise would have become victims of Soviet terror took this opportunity."

In other words, Estonian conscripts continued to fight on the German side until the very end. It is quite clear that there were no anti-German resistance in Estonia (except the pro-Soviet one) until the very late days of German occupation, by contrast, it was an extensive collaboration. The most correct way to write this article would be to honestly claim that in September 1944 Estonian leadership had abandoned the policy of collaboration with Germany and attempted to restore the sovereignity by force. It is also necessary to describe in more details the actions of pro-Soviet partisans (if such information is available), because the White Book mentions arrests and execution of Communists and diversants, who seem to be the only real anti-German fighting force in Estonia in 1941-early 1944.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul states "Again, no mention of any anti-German resistance, just direct collaboration", then quotes in the very next line from the source he found: "By the end of April 1944 the German SD found out about the underground national committee and mass arrests began", odd that the German would go and arrest "collaborators". Paul, applying WP:DUCK is just WP:OR dressed in feathers. It seems apparent Paul has no source that asserts that the Nationial Committee was a collaborationist organisation or that an underground resistance movement never existed (I've already provided several that assert it did exist), otherwise he would be talking turkey. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, in totalitarian societies, the arrests are not per se a demonstration of any revolutionary activity: most people arrested by Gertapo or significant part of those arrested by NKVD for political crimes were not political opponents of the regimes. Therefore, the fact of arrests of Estonian activists (whose actual activity has not been described in the article) means nothing. This my argument has been totally ignored by Martin, so I decided not to return to that. However, taking into account that even German political police had to release part of those activists suggests that most (if not all) of them had not been engaged in any anti-Nazi activity.

Let me re-iterate: I do not claim the National Committee was a collaborationist organisation, however, collaboration was quite common in Estonia during 1941-44, and even the members of the Committee had been engaged in blatant acts of collaboration (e.g. the Uluots interview in support of the mobilisation, where he describe the USSR as a common, German and Estonian enemy).

Let me also point out that the this article can be summarised with a new brilliant proverb: "Collaboration is resistance" which, along with well known "Was is peace" is a new pearl in the treasury of contemporary nationalistic "newspeak". This is intolerable, and either we will discuss how to re-write this article completely, or I will draw attention of WP community to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the Soviet authorities deemed people from the Baltics to be Soviet citizens whether they wanted to be or not; and thus those who acted against the Soviet Union were considered to be collaborators by them. But as you know, collaborationism is defined as cooperation with enemy forces against one's country. As you also know, the Soviet incorporation was unrecognised and thus illegal and therefore soveriegn title never passed to the Soviet Union and hence Soviet citizenry never legally existed on the territory of the Baltics states. Uluots never considered the Soviet Union to be "his country", it was the Estonian state where his allegiance lay. Since the Estonian state has acknowledged and even awarded medals to people like Uluots and Looveer, who were acting for their country the Republic of Estonia, not against it, they cannot be considered collaborators. On the other hand, people like Hjalmar Mäe are universally recognised as Nazi collaborators and traitors as he was clearly acting against the interests of the Estonian state and its people by advocating union with Greater Germany and murdering loyal patriotic Estonian citizens like the Independence War veteran Gotfried Firk because he was a jew at the behest of the Nazis. Now if you want to draw the community's attention to this article, be my guest, every single line is reliably sourced and absolutely verifiable. Certainly editors like Fred Bauder were of assistance in Lia Looveer, where you similarly made claims of Nazi collaboration despite a lack of any reliable sources to support your contentions. I'm attempting develop and expand this article in good faith but I get the impression that you want to divert my attention away from finding suitable sources into some long drawn-out ideological debate that has no direct bearing on the content of this article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If we accept this interpretation, then Vichy France, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Croatia etc never collaborated with Nazi Germany. However, as you know, such a conclusion would be incorrect. Moreover, I cannot understand what relation does the USSR have to the issue we discuss: according to the sources I found, almost noone in Estonia resisted against Nazi regime, many Estonians collaborated with Nazi Germany, and, to my big surprise, the scale of this collaboration was much greater then I thought. In light of that, I would say, it is simply incorrect to have the article with this title.

I am not sure about verifiability, but I see serious neutrality and synthesis issues with this article. That should be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already provided sources above by eminent Western scholars published in various university presses that explicitly state an underground resistance movement existed. You have totally ignored those and all you have provided is your personal analysis based upon, by your own suggestion, WP:DUCK. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the concept of collaborationism aside (see the talk page of German Occupation), Paul is right. The arrest of someone alone does not qualify as resistance. The article desperately needs concrete actions of the resistance movement. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jaan, are you kidding? Your alter-ego Erikupoeg stated above on March 15th, 2009: "Nevertheless, they were imprisoned one and a half months later by the Reichskomissariat, charged with a conspiracy against the German puppet government". So "conspiracy against the German puppet government" isn't resistance now? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the contents of the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Draft dodging, a capital offence, is an act of resistance and was widespread in Estonia at the time[2]. Let us not forget the 6,000 men who escaped to Finland to avoid the draft. That source I linked also states "Resistance to the exactions of the occupier was expressed through a campaign of non-compliance, co-ordinated by underground political circles and a clandestine press" --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. Firstly, the sources described that in another way:

"Because of the losses at the front and the impossibility to restore independence, serving in the German army became less popular by the summer of 1942, which is also refl ected by recruits’ escaping mobilisation by fl eeing to Finland." (White book. In other words, serving became just less popular than in the beginning of the war, and the first reason was the losses, not the opposition to the regime)

Secondly, the attempt to avoid conscription, especially in a foreign army, is quite natural, and is not per se a form of resistance. If that is the only form of "resistance" you found, I see no reason for the article to exist, because the attempt to restore independence has already been covered elsewhere.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is correct, the political resistance is described in the same detail in the National Committee of the Republic of Estonia article; this alone does not warrant a separate article. Makes sense that as the Baltics did not have much classical collaborationism, they also did not have significant resistance outside the political one. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I found that initially the article was devoted to the resistance of pro-Communist/pro-Soviet forces. I fully realise that they represented a very minor part of Estonian population, and, as a result of 1918-20 event part of them was expelled to the Soviet territory and were not the citizens to pre-war Estonia, however, if their activity really included propaganda, sabotage and guerrilla warfare, it would be incorrect to speak about the absence of resistance in Estonia. Do you have any information about these groups?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found this for instance, and the last para of this for a more general view. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pitka's deaths

This article and the Johan Pitka article contain two mutually exclusive versions of his death. I suggest to check the sources and to eliminate this inconsistency.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thanks for the notice, I will look into it. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)