Talk:War crimes trials in Soviet Estonia

Title

I would like to hear what is wrong with title Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961. Please no blanket statements about holocaust denial. Trial was took place in Soviet Estonia and it was about Holocaust. "War Crimes" can include many other things and do not even need to be connected to WW II.--Staberinde 13:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The crimes were not commited in "Soviet occupied Estonia"
2. The word "holocaust" was unknown in 1961
3. the word "war crimes" is used for most, if not all related trials.

Now for the "blanket statement":

The attempt to change the name is yet another example of Estonian Holocaust denial. The emphasis in on the word "Soviet" as if to point out that:

• Soviets had no authority to try the "claimed" war criminals
• The trials had no international recognition
• They were most likely show trials

Futhermore the intent here is the infer, that as the trials were null and void the accused must in fact have been innocent.

None of these assuptions have any support in the sources. -- Petri Krohn 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri, I asked what is wrong with title (Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961), I did not question if it is show trial, if they were actualy guilty, if estonia was occupied then trial took place or anything else unrelated. Also that The word "holocaust" was unknown in 1961 is not an argument as it was also not known in 1939-1945 but we still have article The Holocaust.--Staberinde 13:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn's apparently complicated preferences for article title wordings can be explained by Occam's razor: He does not particularly care whether the victims were Jews or not, he denies the Soviet occupation of Estonia, and his Wikipedia record clearly indicates that he hates Estonians. Hence he did not particularly want the words 'Holocaust' and 'Soviet' to be used here, and would vehemently stick to an article title insinuating that these were not so much 'Nazi crimes', or 'crimes of Estonian collaborators', but 'Estonian crimes'. Cheap and transparent.--Klamber 20:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the title of Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961. Other variants are thinkable, such as Holocaust trials of 1961 in Estonian SSR. I oppose narrowing the scope to war crimes; old footage shows undubitably that the primary accusations were those of crimes against humanity instead. Thus, classifying the whole proceedings under Holocaust (as well as genocide) is more appropriate than classifying it under war crimes.

Furthermore, it probably deserves mention that trials like this, as well as other -- less publicised -- NKVD/KGB executions, were a main factor in there being so little Nazi criminals left to try in post-Soviet Estonia, which Simon Wiesenthal Center regularly points out. Digwuren 14:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd logic that Petri would think that changing the title to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961 is Holocaust denial. I think Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961 better describes the article which seems to specifically describes crimes against Jews and Gypsies. War crimes really refers to something else and is outside the scope of the article. I would support a rename, perhaps to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia so we are not restricted to a particular year. Martintg 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It stems from Petri Krohn's inability to tell apart the real world from his private fantasies. Consequently, when he says 'Holocaust denial', the actual semantic content is 'You're disagreeing with me on a Holocaust-related subject!'. In this case, he appears to have gotten the idea that 'war crimes' is the One True Classification of the atrocity described, and, perhaps out of a "theory" that 'war crimes' is a harsher description than 'participation in Holocaust', sees reclassification of this Holocaust event as a Holocaust event as "reducing the significance of Holocaust".

I know, it's absurd to a reasonable observer. That's why psychoceramics, the study of cracked pots, is so hard to master. Digwuren 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Klamber's explanation above also merits consideration. Digwuren 05:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to Petri's claim that he word "holocaust" was unknown in 1961, the word was first used in 1942, see Holocaust#Etymology_and_use_of_the_term. Martintg 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This article specifically describes the trials held in Soviet Estonia over crimes committed against Jews during WW2. Martintg 22:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No - There is no precedent for this selection of words.

Google hits:

• "war crimes trial": 935 000
• "Holocaust trial": 753 (first hit: "Holocaust Denial On Trial")
• "Estonian SSR": 61 800
• "Soviet Estonia": 24 500 (most links to "post-Soviet Estonia")

-- Petri Krohn 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Google hits:

• "Estonian war crimes": 6
• "Estonian war crimes trial": 0
• "Estonian war crimes trials": 0

-- --Klamber 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Current title is not adequate, as they were Holocaust trials - and they certainly happened in Soviet Estonia. Perhaps Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, like has been recommended before. That gives all location, incident and time frame. DLX 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Petri has provided no serious argumentation aganist renaming. Also attempt to use very poorly conducted google search as agument is ridiculous, as Klamber demonstrated: "Estonian war crimes trials" = 0. Proposed Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia is a lot more accurate.--Staberinde 16:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Title is more succinct. This effort to keep the title Estonian war crimes trials in preference to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia seems to be an attempt to diminish the crimes of the Holocaust by placing it on the level of a mere War crime, thus it could be construed as a form of Holocaust Denial. --Martintg 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The suggested alternative title is much less ambiguous. Current title is logically inconsistent wordplay by a certain user with a vociferous record of denying the 1940-1941/1944-1991 Soviet occupation of Estonia. Inconsistent because, according to such "logic" of Soviet occupation denial, Estonian state did not exist in 1942, Kalevi-Liiva was on Soviet territory, and Gerrets, Mere and other criminals were Soviet citizens, which would make the subject of this article really "Soviet war crimes", not "Estonian war crimes"... Disclaimer: In case anyone suspects me of being the puppeteer of DLX and Klamber, please do not count this vote. Cheers, --3 Löwi 08:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is clear; I moved the article to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia.

Petri Krohn's only nay here is a clear illustration of his rôle as a consistent obstructionist on Estonia-related articles. Digwuren 12:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

It seems to me, that that you are trying to dismiss the trials and the evidence as "Soviet propaganda". This is a common atitude among Estonians, as evident in the on-line comments to one of the sources: Arvamused artiklile Omakaitse omakohus -- Petri Krohn 14:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly do we want to dismiss those trials? By trying to fix the title that doesn't cover the topic accurately? Are you sure we have the "atitude"? DLX 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri, your attempts to picture trials over holocaust perperators as trials over simple war criminals can be considered holocaust denial. Secondly Soviet Estonia was place there trials took place, that if they were neutral or not can be decided by reader. Finally, please no statements in style "you are bad for reason x and this is common attidute among Estonians".--Staberinde 20:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to move. The weaselizing move poll is not valid, and voting is evil. One might have asked me in advance who will vote to expurgate the word "Holocaust" from the title, and my prediction would have been accurate. Wikipedia does not welcome the votes of one-purpose meatpuppets. What about some comments from a neutral observer? Have you listed the page on WP:RM? --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found a retrospective crystal ball in a box of old junk. Guess what? It postdicts that the only one to vote for expurgation of 'Holocaust' from the title was Petri Krohn. Can your predictions match my awesome postdiction power? I doubt it. Digwuren 12:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The page has been listed for four days, which you would have undubitably seen if you would have just checked your own link of WP:RM. However, if you would have so done, you would also have seen that the policy does not require such listing. Digwuren 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Please note that the current title implicitly follows the same article naming convention as German war crimes, Italian war crimes, Japanese war crimes, Japanese war crimes trials, etc., whereas it would much more logically fit in the same pattern as Auschwitz trial, Belsen Trial, Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, Hamburg Ravensbrück Trials, Mauthausen-Gusen camp trials, etc. --Klamber 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is specifically about Holocaust crimes. The articles you cite also concern war crimes commited by states such as, for example

1. Forcing occupied people to serve in the forces of a hostile power
2. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
3. Settlement of occupied territory

which Germany, Italy and Japan were guilty of, but certainly not Estonia. --Martintg

Closing words of Gerrets

I remember reading from somewhere, that detailed conscript of trial's closing/final statement (probably wrong wording, I don't know what is correct) by Gerrets were released to the newspapers before he made that statement. I couldn't find the source, but it would be good to have that in the article. DLX 16:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Show trial?

From the article Show trial:

“ The term show trial describes a type of public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant: the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. It tends to be retributive rather than correctional justice. Most of the time it involves a 'sin' and a 'planting of evidence'. ”

There has not been any proof or references presented to show that this trial would satisfy any of the criteria listed. It has been tagged for sources almost two days. I am removing the claim of show trial. -- Petri Krohn 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All public Soviet political trials were show trials, and this is common knowledge.

Furthermore, merely because an event happens to be convenient for propaganda doesn't mean it's inherently wrong or incorrect. See Katyn massacre, an atrocity heavily used by the Nazi propaganda machine but nevertheless true. Digwuren 12:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

About showrtrialness. The "trial" was held in a public theatre with thousands as audience. The "trial" was broadcast in TV and radio. There was no real defence process involved -- it consisted of the accused reading their confessions from paper and then declaring the guilt. You can't get more show trial than that. Also some people who have watched/listened the recordings have admitted that the accused probably heard some of the accusations first time...

So, the show factor of this trial should be definitely marked in the intro. Nobody can claim that this was not intended as show and propaganda, regardless of the validity of the accusations. Suva 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fraudulent edits

As to this diff, the source [Birn, Ruth Bettina (2001), Collaboration with Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe: the Case of the Estonian Security Police. Contemporary European History 10.2, 181-198, available via Cambridge Journals Online with subscription] says nothing about Viik, Wijk Vijk, Wiik etc. Any suggestions? And yes, somebody claimed that he was going to start arbitration. If so, this will certainly go right there. Colchicum 12:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have failed to notice that, within an hour or two, I sourced the entire article which you flooded with a dozen bad-faith requests for citations. It's no wonder that mistakes happen when one works in haste. My actions made the article eligible for DYK, while the abuse of {fact} tags was previously qualified by ArbCom as "tag trolling". Don't you see the difference between our behaviour? In this particular case, the former was constructive, while the latter was disruptive. Please don't troll again, and there will be no more mistakes. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have failed to notice that, but I appeared here for the first time on June 13, 19:01, while this edit was done on June 10, 15:05, more than three days before. Only you can figure out how I could have made "a dozen bad-faith requests for citations" by June 10. Colchicum 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What is this? As I have repeated ad nauseum, I don't make a clear distinction between you, Digwuren, DLX, Alexia, etc. Your style of editing is suspiciously similar; you pop up within minutes to second each other's opinion, and RCU has so far been inconclusive. Until the contrary is proved, I should be excused in feeling that foul play is involved here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a fact-tag posted on June 19 (cf. a dozen by June 10). I have never been subject to RCU. You may try if you wish. I don't care of your suspicions and feelings. This article and many others is now on my Watchlist, so it is hardly surprising that I follow edits here. Colchicum 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this nonsense!

• To Ghirla: His edit history clearly shows, that he is not User:Digwuren
• To Colchicum: Try to stay away from these socks. You do not really want to share their reputation. -- Petri Krohn 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, what abuse of {fact} tags? References of earlier version of article included German wikipedia, broken link and forum. I assume that you know such things are not really reliable, especially with controversial stuff like here. As Petri had written article at same day I expected him to have all reliable references at hand and expeted it to be only short formality for him to solve the problem by adding references.--Staberinde 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of people mentioned

I checked the WP:NOTE and WP:BIO and I would dare to say that those people mentioned in this article are not all notable enough to have their own articles. The problem relates to some other New Wave of Estonian Articles aswell. Suva 07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:The requested move

I'm confused, why is the requested move the same title?--Flamgirlant 17:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it was already moved. Suva 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So... can the requested move template be removed?--Flamgirlant 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. `'юзырь:mikka 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Witnesses

Here are the names of some of the witnesses who have given testimony at the trial or against Aleksander Laak in Canada. Also included are their ages at the time of the trial. I will try to update the list. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Susan Spalter, 40 (Czech - New York)
• Gisela Danziger Herzl, 40 (Czech - New York)
• Hanna Klenkova
• Eva Meisnerova, 35
• Markita Marseva, 40
• Ruth Krepshkova, 33

Misleading title

The article should be renamed/moved since the current title is misleading. Whereas the 1961 trials, described in the first half of the article, relate mostly to the Holocaust, the Tartu trials of 1962 are unrelated to the extermination of Jews. A more appropriate title for the entire article would perhaps be "War crimes trials in Soviet Estonia" where the "Holocaust trial" is a subsection. The current title refers exclusively to the roughly 10,000 Jewish victims of the Vaivara concentration camp system, but it does injustice to the roughly 12,000 non-Jewish victims of Tartu (POWs, political prisoners, etc.). An alternative would be to divide it into two separate articles. --Vihelik (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good argument for a rename. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done some further reading which suggests that some of the 12,000 killed in Tartu were Jewish. So I have moved the article back until it can be cleared up. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the findings of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity, 53 people were executed in Tartu for being Jewish. Of course, there may have been occasional but unidentified Jews among the POWs and political prisoners who were executed for "crimes" other than their ethnicity. There were also 80 Jews of Polish and Czech origin, brought from Narva conz. camp in 1943 to erase any evidence of earlier executions, who were eventually killed once their task was completed. Nevertheless, the percentage of Jewish victims in this particular case was so small and in proportion to their number in the general population as not to justify the labeling of Tartu 1961 trials as "Holocaust trials". Again, the article should either be renamed or split in two. --Vihelik (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia → War crimes trials in Soviet Estonia – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is logically inconsistent. Soviet Union did not acknowledge that the Holocause occured, nor used the term. See Anton Weiss-Wendt, who refers to the trials as War crimes trials in Estonia in a chapter on the topic: [1]; Weiss-Wendt wrote perhaps the most extensive account of the Holocaust in Estonia in his recent work Murder Without Hatred. Another example: The Holocaust in the Soviet Union: "Trials in the Baltic Countries: The Estonian trial in March 1961 of Mere, Gerrets and Vix, accused of killing Estonian Jews...". See also the discussion above: Talk:Holocaust_trials_in_Soviet_Estonia#Misleading_title, which I agree with. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I concur and support this move. Dysklyver 09:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose War crimes suggests war crimes, Holocaust suggests the ethnic genocide of the Jewish population. Lutheran women and child weren't rounded up and killed by the Estonian Nazis, it was Jews for being Jewish, unrelated to any potential military threat from these women and children. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

War crimes are normally horrific acts against unarmed civilians during wartime. There is nothing ambiguous about the definition, the nazi leaders were tried and executed specifically for war crimes against the jews. From Nuremberg trials, " ...leadership of Nazi Germany, who planned, carried out, or otherwise participated in the Holocaust and other war crimes. ", also see: War_crime#London_Charter_.2F_Nuremberg_Trials_1945 and War crime. However the point really is that the Russians at this time were basically Holocaust deniers, and the holocaust as we think of it (the genocide) did not feature in these trials. All the crimes prosecuted here happened during wartime and were tried as war crimes, clearly labeled as such in court papers. If the holocaust did not feature in the trials, why are we including it? Its an obvious case of mistaken labelling. Dysklyver 21:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Because per WP:CRITERIA we are labelling in English for modern English-speaking readers of Wikipedia. If the article had a capitalized Official Title, we might want to translate the official title, but as it is we are only putting an English name on the article allowing readers to identify content. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nom's comment -- “Holocaust trials” is not the common name for the trials in 1960s conducted in Soviet Estonia, as I noted in the nom; “War crimes trials” is. In addition, the accused were charged with crimes against communists, soviet guerillas, and other non-Jews. Here are more examples, in addition to Weiss-Wendt:

• The Hidden Histories of War Crimes Trialsm p. 252: “Two particularly prominent trials (…) were held in Estonia. In 1961, a prosecution was mounted against Ain-Ervin Mere (commander of the Estonian Security Police under the Self-Administration set up under …”
• Contested and Shared Places of Memory: History and politics in North ..., by Jorg Hackmann, ‎Marko Lehti (2013): “The Estonian Security Police had a mostly bureaucratic mode of operation, and for this reason it drew only limited ... In the open war-crimes trials that were staged throughout the Baltic region during the 1960s, however, mass murder of Jews ...”

These sources deal with the topic of the trials directly and do not refer to the proceedings as “Holocaust trials”. They use “war crimes convictions” and “war crimes trials”. In another example, a search for [Holocaust trial Estonia 1961] produces this Google books preview:

• “Records Relating to War Crimes Investigations and Trials in Estonia” – that’s the official Soviet name
• Children during the Holocaust - Page 229: “KGB documents obtained by the Simon Wiesenthal Center stemming from the 1961 trials in Estonia”
• Contested and Shared Places of Memory: History and politics in North ...: “The four defendants who stood trial in Tallinn in 1961 (two of them in absentia) were implicated in the mass murder of …”
• On the Margins: About the History of Jews in Estonia - Page 231: “Much less public attention was given to the trials of members of Omakaitse, the Estonian auxiliary police force.” 

An exception that I found is: Everything is Wonderful: Memories of a Collective Farm in Estonia by Sigrid Rausing: “… the head of the Nazi Estonian security police, the Sicherheitspolizei, created in 1942. In 1961 he was condemned to death in the first Soviet Holocaust trials…” but it generally confirms the rule.

In short, “Holocaust trials” in not the WP:COMMON name. The name “Holocaust trials” as it pertains to Soviet Estonia appears to be the resulf of editorial synthesis, as in: the accused were charged with crimes in which Jews were murdered, so we are going to call them “Holocaust trials”. This is contradicted by the fact that the term does not appear in the bulk of the scholarly literature on the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I argued for the move already six years ago and I still think that the title is misleading. I agree with the additional arguments made by K.e.coffman above. --Vihelik (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per nom and WP:COMMON name. Kierzek (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Nom should be careful not to conflate the Soviet Union and Russia (e.g. by referring to the Soviet government of the time as "the Russians" AusLondonder (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• @AusLondonder: Re: "Nom should be careful...", can you point out where I've done that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, nom has presented a well sourced justification for the move. --Nug (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: This would reverse the previous move 23:57, 20 July 2011‎ Nug (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (48 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (moved War crimes trials in Soviet Estonia to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia over redirect: Checked some sources and the original title is correct), so there have been at least two previous moves to-and-fro (see also discussion above). Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You kidding me? That was over six years ago, consensus can change. --Nug (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.