RaivoApr 30th, 2007 - 22:30:10

As I read the opinions of the Americans about that issue, it becomes evident that they think that the statue commemorates the victims of the World War II (as the statue also was mistakenly named in several articles) and that World War II and occupation of Estonia by Russia, are two separate things. And considering these two assumptions, relocating the statue was simply a sensless and unnecessary thing to do, also showing some disrespect against the victims of World War II. But both these assumptions are lies likely intentionally fed by Russian press. The statue was called the 'monument of the liberators' when it was originally put there, which means that this is its purpose which no one can later change by his own will. Also Russia has always maintained that this is a statue of the 'liberator' of Estonia. The statue depicts a soldier in a soviet uniform. The statue was especially intended to symbolize the 'liberation' of Tallinn, during which Russians bombed Tallinn with no purpose, when the nazis had already left Tallinn, causing a lot of casualties. This so-called 'liberation' was re-invasion for Estonia, Russia invaded and occupied Estonia the first time in 1941, and they invaded Estonia in 1944 to continue the occupation. For Russia, and Estonia, the occupation of Estonia was during World War II, and therefore a part of World War II. When the Russians invaded Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, the nazis had already left most of the Estonia, and the power in Estonia belonged to the government of the Republic of Estonia, a continuation of the independent Republic of Estonia before the war. So the Russians did not fight against the nazis, but against soldiers of Estonia, and this is what this statue symbolizes. Therefore, it was found to be inappropriate that such statue stands in the center of the city, being there like a symbol of Russian power in Estonia. And the decision was made to relocate the statue to military cemetry, together with the remains of the soldiers buried there nearby, in spite that there is no cemetry at that site. In the cemetry, the statue would also have more the meaning of memorating the victims of the World War II, and not as a statue of the 'liberator' of Estonia. One of the reason was also, that Russian extremists painfully remembered Estonians the 'liberation' of Tallinn and the occupation of Estonia, during which Russians killed tens or thousands or by some information hundred thousand members of this small nation, by drinking and celebrating at the statue at all the appropriate dates, which caused clashes with the relatives of the victims of the Russian occupation, who at these days wanted to memorate there their dead relatives.

Report this comment

SENMay 1st, 2007 - 05:05:40

Important detail: The person stabbed to death in Tallin was Russian. His name was quoted only as Dmitry over the newswire two days ago. This information has disappeared from press. The question that no one wants to answer is whether there was an Estonian mob, or this Russian victim was killed by other Russians? If there was a clash between mobs, then why do we hear only about the Russian mob? I just find this lack of information peculiar.

As far as symbolism of the statute, I think many people miss the issue completely. The statute is to the 'unknown soldier.' Granted he is depicted in the soviet uniform, but that has nothing to do with the reason why 'he' gave his life. Most of the Soviet soldiers, just ask the surviving veterans, fought not for ideology, the flag, or Stalin. They fought for their children, their wives, and their parents. They fought for their villages and towns. They fought to survive annihilation at the hands of Nazis. Indeed, people who were not slated for extermination by Nazis may say that the 'unknown soldier' was not a liberator, and should have stayed in his village and town and never came to Estonia. But doesn't this approach also inadvertently shows preference for the Nazi rule?

The previous poster makes some exaggerated claims when he says that USSR bombed Tallin when Nazis had already left. The question then is how did the soldiers buried at the site die? Did they die somewhere else and were brought there to be buried? That makes no sense. Secondly, Tallin is a very old and beautiful city with most of the Old Town surviving to this day (search for pics on internet). The same cannot be said about Kiev, Dresden, and many other cities. It must have been not as 'barbaric' as the poster leads you to believe.

Estonia should be independent; but for God sakes leave the bones of the dead undisturbed. Please.

Report this comment