Talk:36th Estonian Police Battalion

Requested move 21 February 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. No objections, and seems reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Schutzmannschaft Front Bataillon 36 Arensburg → 36th Estonian Police Battalion – Common name; please see link. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 21 February 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.

Novogrudok

I have reverted K.e.coffman's edit[1], he has misread the Delfi source, it doesn't draw any conclusion that the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, but discusses some circumstantial evidence found during investigation by the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity, such as a battalion's report with Harald Riipalu's signature on it which places him in the area. However the Commission states on page 862 of their final report: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876). --Nug (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What about this source: link (Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust edited by Roni Stauber)? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That source is mistaken. I have a copy of the Commission report and it further states "Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions." The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found. --Nug (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please also see The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945:

• "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.

This is RS, IMO, and it states this rather unequivocally. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid you are taking a formal approach to this. The battalion either rounded up and shot the prisoners or it did not. There is no middle ground. And the specific research on the matter unequivocally shows they did not. Jaan

I have to agree with Jaan on this. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources, and the one referenced by K.e.coffman doesn't even appear provide any cites or footnotes to any secondary source to support its claim, as one would expect. As I said, the Commission report cites a four year West German investigation (Documents of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalions, ERAF 4-1-9; Estn. Schuma. Btl. 36, Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen Ludwigsburg II 202 AR-Z 219/1967) which found no evidence to support the allegations, and per WP:RS AGE "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarising", indicates that K.e.coffman's source may be prone to such error. --Nug (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, do you believe that both sources are mistaken? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of belief but a matter of WP:WPNOTRS. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, not tertiary sources. --Nug (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

RSN follow up

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_232#Sources_on_Estonian_police_battalion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No response from the reverting editor at the Noticeboard, or at their Talk page. I've restored the content. Pls also see RSN discussion: permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. The paragraph in HMMECG article does not cite any sources. --Vihelik (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The marching orders of the 36th for the time period in question are here[2], exonerating at best, inconclusive at worst. --Vihelik (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a number of Nowogrόdek eyewitness and/or survivor testimonies by Yad Vashem posted on Youtube, all speak about Germans and Poles. I realize that no mention of the Estonians from the 36th is not proof, but it is telling. An eyewitness account here[3] is explicit about Germans and Poles with armbands as perpetrators. --Vihelik (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This is covered in *Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust, edited by Roni Stauber; chapter by Yitzhak Arad

• "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)

In in the Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity:

• "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.

"In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF).

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

The edit [4] includes:

• The follow up investigation by the Estonian Internal Security Service (KaPo) declared that the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity in regards to the participation of the 36th Police Battalion in the killing of the Jewish population of Novogrudok were not based on documentary evidence or eyewitness accounts and are therefore unfounded.

This strikes me as WP:UNDUE, as well as the addition of the word "allegedly". The sources that I listed do not include "allegedly". In addition, the Estonian Internal Security Service does not have the same standing as the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. I don't believe this to be a truely independent source and this language of its statement strikes me as undue. Was it indeed a "follow up investigation"? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What is your statement that KaPo "does not have the same standing" as the EICICAI based on? Unlike the ad hoc investigative commission, it is an organization that has access to means of investigation and analysis that are necessary for criminal investigation. After the conclusion of the Commission were made public, the Estonian Defense Police (as the Internal Security Service is informally known) was charged with the task of investigating the alleged (at this point) involvement of the sixteen members of the battalion, whose names were provided by the Commission and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in the crimes committed in Novogrudok. If it helps, it is akin to the FBI following up on a report by an academic committee--Vihelik (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In the light of the conclusions by the Estonian Defense Police, the use of the term "alleged" is justified. Innocent until proven guilty, or has this changed?--Vihelik (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2018 edit

Preserving here by providing this link. There were several reasons I implemented this partial revert / merge. For example, there's an over-reliance on primary sources / news reporting. Also, the report of the Estonian security service presented the 1960s German investigation as expulcatory for the Estonian members of the battalion, which was not the case. Then there was an undue opinion by a nn criminologist. Etc.

Note that I preserved the additions cited to Hiio and the opinion by a historian from the National Archives. I would be happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, lets take it point by point

1. You cant put claims about war crimes in main part of article and contradicting views into separate section at end. That is simply not how NPOV works.

2. Peeter Kaasik isn't from National Archives of Estonia, National Archives are simply publisher of tuna journal. You can see Peeter Kaasik information here.

3. et:Herbert_Lindmäe is criminology professor from Tartu University who also was in Supreme Court of Estonia 1993–1998, so describing his view as undue is quite disputable.

4. Max Jakobson's statement is quite relevant to commission's report.

5. Also, the report of the Estonian security service presented the 1960s German investigation as expulcatory for the Estonian members of the battalion, which was not the case. - You forgot to mention your source here.

6. You also removed statement about 1960s investigations about massacre itself which associated it with different units. Do you have contradicting source for that too?--Staberinde (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Staberinde: your recent edit has been challenged. Please self-revert, so that we can discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine, reverted to previous stable version.--Staberinde (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you for self-reverting. The overall concern about this version of the article was that it juxtaposed secondary sources with news reporting based on the materials from the Estonian security services and included inappropriate use of Wiki-voice. For example:

• The battalion's report under Harald Riipalu's signature establishes the unit's presence in Novogrudok, Belarus at period from 5 August to 25 August 1942, conducting anti-partisan operations.

References

Note that "conducting anti-partisan operations" is rendered in this version as Wiki-voice, which is unsuitable here, given that the Commission specifically called out this phrase as a euphemism. Since the summer of 1942, the official German term for such operations was increasingly "Bandenbekämpfung" (literally, "combatting bandits"). In any case, since 1941, the terms "partisans" and "bandits" were used interchangeably with armed fighters, "suspicious strangers", civilian non-combatants, and/or Jews; these were all very fluid terms in the context of German security and genocidal operations. Himmler (infamously) noted, after a discussion with Hitler: "Jews — exterminate as partisans" (IIRC, that was in the summer of 1941). From the same version:

• The Estonian Internal Security Service (KaPo) investigation into the battalion's activities concluded that there is no evidence about participation in war crimes or crimes against humanity. It also reported there had been investigation about the battalion in Germany in 1966, including request for information to Soviet Union, which also did not reveal participation in war crimes.

References

This is cited to a 2003 news report. The news article also states: "the Security Police, on its own initiative, further assessed the chronology and details of the operation of the battalion, in order to prevent possible new and unjustified allegations against soldiers of this unit." Security Police is a government agency, so it's appropriate to include its findings under "Investigation and response by Estonian authorities" heading as I did. It's also clear that the motivation of this criminal investigation was to "prevent possible new and unjustified allegations" (emphasis mine).

The German authorities in the 1960s conducted a criminal investigation. They were not conducting a historical investigation, as the Commission did. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible involvement in mass killings is very clearly one single issue. Therefore different views about it need to be handled together. Putting statements supporting one view on controversial issue into main text next to undisputed information while putting statements supporting different view in their on separate section at bottom, is simply a bad practice that fails NPOV completely.

Riipalu's report stated that battalion was conducting anti-partisan operations, so then talking about his report it is relevant. That said, wording could be changed to something along the lines: According to the battalion's report under Harald Riipalu's signature, the unit was present in Novogrudok, Belarus at period from 5 August to 25 August 1942, conducting anti-partisan operations. I would also note that considering duration of the battalion's stay in area, possible involvement in massacres and anti-partisan warfare are not really mutually exclusive.

Also criminal investigations are very relevant then topic is about war crimes.--Staberinde (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of WP:DUE and undue weight. The sources that I listed at the top of the page, Talk:36th Estonian Police Battalion#Novogrudok, do not treat the matter as controversial. For example, the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 was published in 2012 and does not discuss the "controversy", simply stating that the battalion participated in the murder of Jews.

The denials and minimizing came from Estonian authorities in 2003 who "refused to commence criminal prosecution", but presented their own report intended to "prevent possible new and unjustified allegations against soldiers of this unit." [5] (BTW, they were policemen, not soldiers -- not that it mattered wrt the crimes on the Eastern Front, but shows the thinking behind the report).

In this particular case, I feel it's appropriate to discuss the response in a separate section, as I did here: Investigation and response by Estonian authorities. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

As editors already previous sections pointed out, Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 as a tertiary source does not really have some sort of authoritative final say on this topic. We also have 2017 article by a professional historian directly into the matter of the battalion's actions in Novogrudok, which concluded that allegations cannot really be reliably proven or disproven. There is also the aspect that "participation" can mean quite different things, from guarding prisoners to actually performing shootings. The topic is very much controversial and not open and shut case.

You seem to be misunderstanding some context regarding Security Police report. They were presented names of 16 members of the battalion as potential war criminals, but considered presented information as flawed and insufficient basis for criminal investigation. To provide further clarity they launched on their own investigation regarding the battalion's activities. Also you seem to be overly concentrating on somewhat questionable translation of certain part of report. Vaatamata keeldumisele kontrollis kaitsepolitsei omal initsiatiivil täiendavalt pataljoni (sõja)tegevuse kronoloogiat ja üksikasju vältimaks uusi võimalikke põhjendamatuid süüdistusi kõnealuse väeosa sõdurite aadressil. would more properly translate into: Despite the refusal, the Security Police, on its own initiative, further assessed/checked the battalion's (war)chronology and details, in order to prevent new possibly unjustified/unwarranted/unsubstantiated/unfounded allegations against soldiers of this unit. Describing Security Police investigation as "denials and minimizing" you seem to imply that there was some sort of intentional whitewashing going on? This is very much controversial viewpoint to take, but I guess would also make German and Israeli police investigations even more relevant to this topic.--Staberinde (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, as we seem to be going in circles, I threw together another version with more chronological approach to the investigations about massacre and battalion [6].--Staberinde (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Staberinde: I'm still objecting to this version [7] as it has the same issues I already pointed out; please self-revert. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, Staberinde has comprehensively addressed your objections above, and I think Staberinde's latest version is reasonable. --Nug (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I have been addressing you frankly quite vague objections as well as possible, so you need to start providing better feedback if this discussion is to progress anywhere. While I am quite open to view that there may be still room for polishing, overall the structure should be quite solid:

1. It provides short background about massacre, historical reports about battalion's presence in area, and early police investigations. 2. Then comes detailed description about history commission's investigation about battalions involvement, together with supporting encyclopedia entry. 3. Then police investigation which stated that there is no evidence. 4. Finally conclusions from historian's article on this specific subject which concludes that it is not possible to take a firm position on issue.

All main aspects are covered. The order they are provided makes sense chronologically and also allows reader to easily get a good overview of the battalion and Novogrudok killings topic.--Staberinde (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Btw, previous article structure wasn't actually all that different. It provided general battalion history and then Novogrudok at end. But with additional information added a subheading is quite vital for readability.--Staberinde (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

BRD

@Nug: At the RSN discussion last year, you mentioned that you were about to send the relevant pages on the German investigation. Are you able to do that now? I'm still curious how that's presented in the book, so that would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

@Staberinde: My objections were specific, including a. inappropriate use of Wiki voice; b. inadequate sources. The current version of the article is not that much different from what I reverted. Compare the version of 4 August and today: diff; there's little difference between the two.

It's a bit hard to have a productive dialogue when a preferred version is being restored before the discussion has concluded. I would also add that the present version uses inappropriate WP:SYNTH, such as here: "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 supports the view that the battalion took part in the murder..." The Encyclopedia does not "support the view"; it simply states that the unit took part.

There was an extensive discussion about sources at RSN about a year ago, as the result of which the article was modified to the state that you found it. Here's the RSN discussion which may be helpful:

• Part I: Sources
• Part II: Conclusions of the Commission

I believe that there was a consensus for that version, without WP:SYNT and the extensive use of news sources. With that in mind and being mindful of WP:BRD, I would incourage you to self-revert, so that we can continue the discussion. I'd be happy to share additional thoughts on the matter of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have read RSN discussion. While a quite interesting read, at the end where was some talk about scanning some pages from different sources which doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere, and at that point discussion pretty much died. And many months later you presented your version which received no responses. I can't see any wider consensus there. Anyway I cut down news sources to bare minimum and adjusted some wordings to solve synth/wikivoice concerns. [8] --Staberinde (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that it should be mentioned in the article that Kaasik was one of the researcher of the History Commission. There is a contradiction between the conclusions of the history commission and body of the detailed report which Kaasik co-authored, which states on page 862: "According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions." Apparently the allegations against the 36th police battalion were originally surfaced when the Soviets published confessions of two or three Estonian veterans in around 1948. However it turned out later that one of the men joined the 36th Battalion after the mass killings, so he could not have witnessed it, which puts the other confessions into doubt. With no other direct corroborating evidence from German or Israeli authorities found, that is probably why the detailed report concludes there was no reliable data. --Nug (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Staberinde: To clarify, prior to the RSN discussion that I linked, the comments on this Talk page included:

• "that source [Arad] is mistaken";
• "the specific research on the matter unequivocally shows they did not [participate in the Novogrudok killings]";
• "K.e.coffman's source may be prone to such error"; etc.

After RSN, there were no such objections, which indicated to me that the consensus had indeed shifted. The discussion about scanning materials was about two sources, the Novogrudok entry in the The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos (which I received) and Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity pp. 825–876 (which I did not). If you happen to have it, would you be able to share the pages that deal with the German investigation with me? It's covered on pages 861–862.

Thank you for the latest edits; they've addressed some of the concerns. Since there was a reluctance to self-revert, I edited the page to cover the remaining issues:

• The inclusion of decades-old investigations is potentially undue. Was Israeli police aware of the Riipalu report placing the unit in Novogrodok when it conducted its inquiry in 1963, or was its discovery a more recent development?
• Likewise for the German investigation. The Estonian security service gives it a lot of weight, but I'm sceptical about it, given how limited the reach of the Central Office of the State Justice Administrations for the Investigation of National Socialist Crimes was. The investigation is mentioned in the Estonia 1940–1945 source but it's unclear what weight it's given there -- that's in part why I've been inquiring about these pages.
• Peeter Kaasik (quoted at the end of the article) appears to be a fairly unremarkable academic. I looked at the bio link provided [9] and also checked his publications in WorldCat which lists one work held by two libraries. The publication link [10] is filed under "Commentary". As presented, this looks to be an undue opinion by a nn academic, especially when juxtaposed with the findings of the presidential commission.

I also removed some redundancy. Preserving the material here by providing this link. I would be happy to discuss further. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, how is it possible, on the one hand, to rely upon the findings Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity, yet dismiss Peeter Kaasik as a fairly unremarkable academic, even though he is a named author of a significant proportion of the commission report? On that basis of his role as core researcher and named co-author of the Estonia 1940–1945 report, his opinion carries significant weight. As far as I understand, the Novogrudok entry in the The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos cites the Estonia 1940–1945 report as a source, so it is really just a derivative work which doesn't independently add anything of the events, and thus its inclusion is undue. Also, I don't see how inclusion of decades-old investigations including the German Police investigation can be undue if it is cited by the Estonia 1940–1945 report, this article is about the history of the 36th Estonian Police Battalion, so why wouldn't we also include the history of investigations of the 36th Estonian Police Battalions too. I've uploaded the relevant pages from the Estonia 1940–1945 report here:

36th Battalion in Nowogrodek, p861,36th Battalion in Nowogrodek, p862,36th Battalion in Nowogrodek, p863,thumb|Soviet investigation, pp878-879

Note that the page images have been resized by a bot, but the original resolution is still available in the file version history but will be automatically deleted in seven days. --Nug (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, that sentence about 1960s police investigations provides reader some very relevant context. It gives information about other units involved in Novogroduk, showing that the 36th battalion wasn't operating alone in the area. Additionally it helps to explain why the 36th battalion's possible participation has been still under investigation over half a century later.

Regarding Peeter Kaasik, sure he is not a world famous historian. But considering that he was researcher in Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity and later in Institute of Historical Memory which succeeded the Commission, he clearly has relevant background. Also his article is one of the very few in depth researches on this specific relatively obscure issue, so I would say that his conclusions are definitely relevant enough to be mentioned, with attribution of course.--Staberinde (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Estonia 1940–1945

Thanks for sharing the scans, which I read with interest. I don't believe it's accurate to present Kaasik as being "of" or "in" the Commission. The Commission had strictly international membership; there were no Estonians on it. The commission's charter included meeting twice a year to review "research findings presented to them by a team of local researchers, mostly graduate students, coordinated by presidential adviser Toomas Hiio." Based on that research, the Commission drew its own "Conclusions" pertaining to the German occupation, which were published in 2001. The research studies by local scholars were combined with the Conclusions and published in book form as Estonia 1940–1945.

References

Looking at the source: The unit operated within 30 km radius of Novogrudok. On 6 August, a 26-man detachment was deployed to Diatlovo (p. 861). The book mentions in the same para that 1500 to 2000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo on that date (p. 862). Etc. Note that the authors do not outright come out and say that the battalion did not participate in the murders in these two locations. They merely state that "there's no reliable data" which is different. The prior investigations are mentioned in passing. The chapter also notes that the battalion suffered just one killed and two wounded in three weeks. It did not seem that much actual combat was going on. From the Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF), page XXI:

...it has been possible by careful use of Soviet-era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.

Note that the Conclusions are still published on the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory's website [11]; they have not been retracted or modified. In short, I don't see much of a contradiction between the Conclusions and Estonia 1940–1945, pp. 861–862. The book chapter is clinical in its presentation, while the Conclusions spell it out. There's certainly nothing on these two pages to suggest that the battalion's marching orders were "exonerating at best" or that the "specific research on the matter unequivocally shows they did not [participate in the murders]", as editors claimed in earlier discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The current discussion was never about exoneration or claiming that the Battalion did not participate, clearly the killings involved more people than just those that pulled the trigger, lorry drivers, dog handlers, perimeter guards, etc, were also participants. I think that report does make the assertion that there is no reliable evidence connecting the Battalion with the specific action or task of shooting these people, which the report states were attributed to the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian unit. The current discussion is about your objection to mention of the 1960s German police investigation, the opinion of Tartu University criminology professor Herbert Lindmäe, the later investigation by the Estonian security service and the published opinion of one of the lead commission researchers Peter Kaasik, in the article. --Nug (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Commission's report obviously deserves its inclusion, I don't really think there is a dispute about that currently. But that also doesn't mean that we should automatically exclude other investigations into this matter. Overall this is clearly a issue where existing documentation is largely limited, inconclusive, in some parts of questionable reliability, and in some respects contradictory. In such situation it is possible to draw different conclusions from same base data. Wikipedia should report different conclusions with proper attribution and not try to conduct its own investigation to determine the final truth.--Staberinde (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following the arguments here. Nug's initial claim was that Arad was "mistaken" and that the USHMM Encyclopedia was "prone to such error" -- and presumably the presidential commission as well? It was then posited that Kaasik's "opinion carries significant weight" because he was a "core" / "lead" researcher "of" / "in" the commission. It was also claimed that there's a "contradiction between the conclusions of the history commission and body of the detailed report which Kaasik co-authored".

To address these recent arguments, I explained that Kaasik provided a research study for the commission that came up with its own conclusions. Re this statement: "With no other direct corroborating evidence from German or Israeli authorities found, that is probably why the detailed report concludes there was no reliable data" -- I think this is backwards. My understanding from reading the article above ("Negotiating History...") is that the "detailed report" (Kaasik) came first, and then the Conclusion. I'd be happy to email the PDF of the article to anyone interested.

The Commission took the studies by the local researchers and formulated its own conclusions. The Estonian security service disagreed with the findings, which happens. Re "Wikipedia should report different conclusions with proper attribution and not try to conduct its own investigation to determine the final truth" -- this is already covered in the article: Novogrudok. As an aside, much of the comments on this page were indeed about trying to "determine the final truth", with comments such as:

"The battalion either rounded up and shot the prisoners or it did not. There is no middle ground."

"The marching orders of the 36th for the time period in question are here [2], exonerating at best, inconclusive at worst."

"Innocent until proven guilty, or has this changed?"

"[This] would also make German and Israeli police investigations even more relevant to this topic."

"that is probably why the detailed report concludes there was no reliable data."

Etc. This perhaps explains why the threads are in multiple parts and span 15 months, with a side trip to RSN. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I get the impression that you are using quotes from different editors out of context from different talk page sections spanning 15 months in order to avoid the current discussion about the article improvements proposed by Staberinde. Perhaps in your mind this discussion is to "determine the final truth" (hence you want to exclude mention of other previous investigations as "undue", fearing it may some how dilute the Commissions conclusions?), but I thought the discussion was always about improving the article according to our understanding of various sources as they come to light. Article talk page is for discussing improvements, not a forum for general discussion of the topic. --Nug (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Discussion is hard to follow, because there seem to be serious problems staying on topic of actual proposed additions to article. I am going to copy my comment from few days ago:
"K.e.coffman, that sentence about 1960s police investigations provides reader some very relevant context. It gives information about other units involved in Novogroduk, showing that the 36th battalion wasn't operating alone in the area. Additionally it helps to explain why the 36th battalion's possible participation has been still under investigation over half a century later. Regarding Peeter Kaasik, sure he is not a world famous historian. But considering that he was researcher in Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity and later in Institute of Historical Memory which succeeded the Commission, he clearly has relevant background. Also his article is one of the very few in depth researches on this specific relatively obscure issue, so I would say that his conclusions are definitely relevant enough to be mentioned, with attribution of course."
Now are there any objections? Lets leave out the question how exactly Kaasik's relation to Commission as a researcher could be phrased, as that is not a proposed addition.--Staberinde (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I already outlined my objections to the content that I removed with this edit here: [12]. I will reiterate:

• I don’t think that the arguments in the reposted comment are well supported by the source (Estonia 1940-1945). The Israeli 1960s investigation is mentioned in passing, mostly to indicate how many people were killed. Then the source mentions "contemporary researchers". In contrast, the current research places the battalion in the 7 August Aktion as the bulk of the manpower present. See, for example, Yad Vashem Studies: "The second massacre took place on 7 August 1942, at Litowka. (…) they included, in the main, Estonian, and possibly also Lithuanian and Latvian, auxiliaries and the local militia…" [13] (p. 51). Also see this Yad Vashem listing that places Estonian policemen both at Nowogrodek and Diatlovo (Zdzieciol) killings: [14]. Highlighting a decades-old investigation looks like cherry-picking and would lead to a non-neutral presentation. Same for the German investigation. The source says "no evidence was found" which is vague. Again, it’s unclear whether the German investigators were aware of PB 36’s presence in the area or their possible role in this particular massacre.

• Re: Kaasik, quoting him by name gives undue weight to an opinion by a nn academic, especially when juxtaposed with the findings of the presidential commission, as I already mentioned. And do we really need a milquetoast quote about the matter being a "question of faith"? That aside, the commission did not find the evidence to be "largely limited, inconclusive, in some parts of questionable reliability, and in some respects contradictory" (Staberinde’s language). Their phrasing is unambiguous. The report by the Estonian security service is already included to represent the position of the Estonian authorities, which I believe is sufficient: Novogrudok.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The report's mention of "contemporary researchers" has a footnote that cites the 1967 German investigation and Christian Gerlach's book published in 2000. The Yad Vashem source[15] also mentions the presence of Lithuanian and Belorusan police while attributing the act of shooting to the Germans, which is consistent with the Commission's assertion that "contemporary researchers" attribute the executions to Lithuanian and Belorusan units as well as the local German gendarmerie. Cherry picking means to pick a subset of sources to suit some POV, but if we mention all previous investigations, Soviet and Israeli and German investigations giving due weight according to coverage, then where is the cherry picking? These investigations form a part of the post-war history of the Battalion, and to exclude some of them would be in fact a kind of reverse cherry picking, i.e. cherry rejection. The German investigators must have been aware of 36th Battalion's presence in the area and their alleged role in those massacres, otherwise why would they have launched an investigation in the first place? So let's mention all these investigations. --Nug (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"quoting him by name" that is called providing attribution, general practice then all sources don't agree. "nn academic" I am not aware of any wikipedia rule requiring academics to pass wikipedia notability rules for being used as sources. Also I am quite open to adjusting specific wordings if "milquetoast quote" feels unnecessary.--Staberinde (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Christian Gerlach is certainly a notable historian, and the Commission report mentions as the "contemporary researcher", citing pages 701 and 702 of his book Kalkulierte Morde. It is in German, and no doubt any German university library would hold a copy, perhaps K.e.coffman could photocopy those two pages. --Nug (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:CHERRY which deals with cherry-picked facts: "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject (positive and negative), a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias…". The version that I reverted (#Novogrudok) contained the following:

• …but only concrete documentary evidence…
• In 1960s German and Israeli police investigations about Novogrudok killings blamed them on [someone else]
• Estonian Internal Security Service (KaPo) investigation into the battalion's activities concluded that there is no evidence…
• …did not reveal participation in war crimes…

I think one can see how cherry-picked facts and statements can build an exculpatory narrative. This is not at all apparent from the scans of Estonia 1940-1945 that Nug shared, and especially not from the other sources I listed: Yehuda Bauer, Yitzhak Arad, Yad Vashem database, Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, etc.

I believe that the current version of the article is adequate. It does not say that PB 36 was the only unit responsible, only that it "participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews…". This is consistent with the sources that I presented -- Bauer, ECG, Yad Vashem, etc, -- which are highly respected. Sources that I listed agree, while a minority opinion is that (I paraphrase) maybe they did it; maybe they didn't". Should it be given as much, or even more, WP:WEIGHT as the majority opinion? The comment on how it is not really possible to prove or disprove anything comes from a nn academic; even with attribution, it does not carry the same weight. This seems to be rehashing of the same arguments, including via an involved source (KaPo), which is not necessary in the article, IMO.

Re: Gerlach, I, unfortunately, don’t have access to his work, and all that comes up in Google books is a short snippet: [16]. I've reached out to Assayer who occasionally helps out with German-language sources. I hope that he'll get back to us re: these pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Gerlach summarily talks about several massacres in the region of Nowogrodek between April and early June 1942. He continues: Anfang August fand eine Mordwelle mit weiteren mindestens 9500 Opfern ihr Ende. Zum Teil führte die Gendarmerie des Gebiets, unterstützt von einer litauischen Einheit und der örtlichen Schutzmannschaft, die Morde ohne Hilfe der Sicherheitspolizei aus. (p. 701) In English: "At the beginning of August a wave of murders with at least 9,000 more victims was concluded. Partly the gendarmerie of the region, supported by a Lithuanian unit and the local Schutzmannschaft carried out the murders without help by the Sicherheitspolizei." Thus Gerlach does not accuse these units of these specific action (i.e. the massacres on 6 and 7 August), but he accuses these units to be responsible for some of the massacres during that wave of murders. That is because Gerlach argues that the German civil administration, of which the Gendarmerie was a part, actively participated in the selection and killing of the Jews and that not only the Sipo was to blame.

Reliable sources have been named that explictly implicate the 36th Estonian Police Battallion in the massacres (Yitzhak Arad, Yehuda Bauer). I do miss, however, Efraim Zuroff's contribution, which is crucial in putting the politics of memory into perspective. I would suggest to use Zuroffs's article Eastern Europe: Anti-Semitism in the Wake of Holocaust-Related Issues, in: Jewish Political Studies Review 17:1-2 (Spring 2005) It is available online[17] and has been reprinted in Not Your Father's Antisemitism: Hatred of the Jews in the 21st Century, ed. by Michael Berenbaum (2008). For further context one might look at Meike Wulff's dissertation "Historical C ulture, Conflicting Memories and Identities in post-Soviet Estonia," (Univ. of London, 2005). She comments on Zuroff's efforts: This substantiates the idea that the commission’s carefully-worded and well-balanced report may not reflect the predominant opinion among Estonian historians, or indeed of Estonian society at large. Rather it can be seen as, if not as a token gesture, at least as an ‘emblematic’ use of history. (p. 228) [18]--Assayer (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to light the relevant passages from Gerlach's book, much appreciated.

I've read Meike Wulf's PhD thesis "Historical Culture, Conflicting Memories and Identities in post-Soviet Estonia" with much interest, particularly the quote that the "report may not reflect the predominant opinion among Estonian historians, or indeed of Estonian society at large". While Wulf covers the most salient points of Estonian pre-WW2 history, I am surprised there was no mention of Estonia's enlightened attitude to its Jewish citizenry, since Wulf devotes a significant part of her dissertation upon the impact of Holocaust in Estonia. To summarise that Estonia attitude, it is interesting to note that in 1936, the British-based Jewish newspaper The Jewish Chronicle reported after a visit to Tallinn by one of its journalists:

"Estonia is the only country in Eastern Europe where neither the Government nor the people practice any discrimination against Jews and where Jews are left in peace.... the cultural autonomy granted to Estonian Jews ten years ago still holds good, and Jews are allowed to lead a free and unmolested life and fashion it in accord with their national and cultural principles."

Contrast this to the situation in Germany in 1936, where Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them from participating in education, politics, higher education, and industry.

Meike Wulf's apparent ignorance of Estonia's pre-war attitude to it's Jewish citizenry seems to have resulted in a missed opportunity to explore that aspect of these "conflicting memories", it was that generation of Estonians who spent their formative years in this tolerant environment that were involved in WW2. In citing Berenbaum's and Zuroff's papers on Eastern European anti-semitism I guess it is inconceivable to some to think that Eastern Europe was not uniformly anti-semitic. Let's face it, there has been a strong thread of anti-semitism prevalent throughout much of Europe including the United Kingdom before the Holocaust. So I wonder if some authors work under an unspoken assumption that anti-semitism must have been prevalent in Estonia too. Certainly Wulf seems to attribute the extermination of the Jews as a revenge the Estonians took on them for the part they played in the Soviet regime. Some historians see that view as advancing the notion of a "Germanless Holocaust"[19].

Moving on to K.e.coffman's objections, WP:CHERRY may well be applicable if, say, there were several investigations by the German police in the decades since WW2, by we only present one in the article. However there was only one German investigation, and it is notable, so I don't see how that would be cherry picking, particularly of we mention all the other investigations, Soviet, German and Israeli, in addition to the Estonia investigation already mentioned. I don't think that mentioning these other investigations somehow provides an exculpatory narrative. On the contrary, not to mention these investigations may subtly suggest a "Germanless Holocaust" narrative. --Nug (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The study by Wulf deals with post-Soviet Estonia and not with pre-WWII Estonia. Historian Anton Weiss-Wendt, who has published extensively about the history of Jewry and the Holocaust in Estonia, for example, notes that antisemitism was only marginal in interwar Estonia. After the invasion of the Wehrmacht there were at first no pogroms and no ghettos. He nevertheless also notes that the murder of the Estonian Jews by the Nazis was never discussed publicly after the war. According to him antisemitism is now prevalent among the Estonian people, because many Estonians deny any responsibility for the crimes perpetrated during WWII. He concludes that Estonian public opinion has it that Jews are not part of the Estonian history. That said, your quote of the "Germanless Holocaust" is actually by Andrievs Ezergailis and can be found here. Ezergailis' work, though important, has generated controversy and is now nowadays considered dated. See, for example, Lettland unter deutscher Besatzung 1941–1944 by Katrin Reichelt (Berlin 2011). You don't have to take my word for that. See the review by Matthew Kott doi:10.1093/hgs/dct008. As Kott also explains: "Since regaining independence from the USSR, the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have come under pressure from both domestic and international actors to engage in Vergangenheitsbewältigung with regard to the Holocaust. This has not been easy for societies who see themselves as victims of Soviet crimes against humanity and have had their understanding of Nazism and its crimes distorted by the very same Soviet regime. The resultant national historical narratives have thus blurred the roles of some victims, perpetrators, and heroes in a way that perplexes outsiders and raises fears of a rehabilitation of fascism. At the same time, persistent general ignorance abroad about modern Baltic history often permits gross oversimplifications that insult locals, who feel unjustly branded as nations of perpetrators." Thus I would strongly suggest that you abtain from damning conclusions concerning academic works, if you do not have evidence to back up those claims. To "wonder" if someone "seems" to subscribe to certain notions is simply not enough. Or, as Arad, who is also critical of Ezergailis, put it in the article you linked: "It goes without saying that there was no Germanless Holocaust."--Assayer (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a copy of Anton Weiss-Wendt's book Murder without hatred, and he does not discuss present day anti-semitism within Estonia. That book is a detailed cataloging of the events of the Holocaust in Estonia, with Weiss-Wendt's central thesis was that those killings were not motivated by anti-Semitism or hate of Jews, but by other factors, hence the title. There have been some criticisms about Weiss-Wendt's interpretations[20]. Perhaps you were referring to Weiss-Wendt's paper Why the Holocaust Does Not Matter to Estonians published in the Journal of Baltic Studies[21]. In that article he assesses Estonia's level of anti-semitism upon the basis of people's online comments to controversial articles published via news portals. I think that is a deeply flawed methodology for obvious reasons. A more objective assessment is found here[22]:

"In the light of the recently adopted working definition, antisemitism cannot be considered a major societal problem in Estonia. Isolated cases have been registered throughout the years, but no massive phenomenon can be pointed out."

Of course there was no Germanless Holocaust, Roni Stauber was actually affirming what Ezergailis says, which is that the Germans played a central role in the Holocaust in the Baltics (which some seek to diminish via a "Germanless Holocaust" narrative), by stating "It goes without saying that there was no Germanless Holocaust, and that the German occupation and the German policy toward the Jews were the sine qua non of the Holocaust." Coming back to the article, the way the section #Novogrudok reads, it seems as if the 36th Battalion were solely responsible for the killing of 3000–5000 Jews in the area of Novogrudok, implying a Germanless action, because K.e.coffman objects to the mention of a 1967 German investigation that also attributed these killings to the local German gendarmerie and other units. --Nug (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the entry on Estonia in the Handbuch des Antisemitismus, vol. 1 (2008), written by Weiss-Wendt. The essay you mentioned seems to be an extended version with notes. You were citing Yitzhak Arad, Popular Collaboration in the Baltic States in: Collaboration with the Nazis, ed. by Roni Stauber, p. 64. And Arad is critical of Ezergailis, who attributes the notion of a "Germanless Holocaust" to Jewish survivors failing to see the Germans giving orders. Erzergailis dismisses the evidence of survivors as "folklore", whereas for Arad that is an essential source for reasearch. Therefore I would once again suggest that you handle sources and interpretations more carefully. I do no share the impression that it seems as if the 36th Battalion were solely responsible for the killing of 3000–5000 Jews in the area of Novogrudok, implying a Germanless action, even less because K.e.coffman objects to the mention of a 1967 German investigation that also attributed these killings to the local German gendarmerie and other units. It is stated by a quote of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity that the "36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942" and so forth. The wording does not suggest that the 36th was solely responsible for massacres on 6 and 7 August (two days). Apparently you do not object to that wording anyway, but rather press for the inclusion of a statement regarding a 1966 investigation which also did not reveal participation in war crimes. If I understand you correctly, you are not referring to files of the German investigation directly, but to a summary by the Commission on page 862 of their final report, stating There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. The latter statement does not absolve the whole unit of war crimes, however, but merely notes that there is not enough evidence to charge members of the 36th with the execution of Jews, which is btw not the only war crime that the 36th possibly could have committed. Indeed, historians argue differently than the judiciary, particularly the German judiciary in the 1960ies. Historians do not need to prove individual guilt. They do not put people on trial. It would therefore certainly help to discuss Zuroff's futile attempt to press charges against former members of the 36th. Moreover, Wolfgang Curilla implicates the 36th in actions in Slonim, Stolpce, Naliboki, Lagoisk, and Nowogrodek. He lists an order of 8 August 1942 sending three Latvian and one Lithuanian batailion, the 36th, and a platoon of Gendarmerie to these places. (Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland, 1941-1944, 2nd ed., Paderborn 2006, p. 399f.) These units were the "Schutzmannschafts-Bataillone" operation in that region, where further massacres occured on 8 August 1942. (ibid., p. 372)--Assayer (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)