I had no idea that only 3 Estonian battalions actually stopped the mighty Red Army at Narva for 5 months. This appears to have been a miraculous effort by Estonian troops. One has to wonder though, if a regiment (usually consisting of 3 battalions) could sucessfully hold off the Reds for this amount of time, why did Estonia's government which at the time had several divisions (usually consisting of 3 regiments each), let the Russians in without a fight in the first place?
Either I am missing something or Mr. Virak has problems expressing himself in English.

Yes, the language of the article does leave something to be desired. I wondered, for example, 1080 people were arrested 1082 executed. It's the editor's job to weed out these kinds of mistakes.

The author seems to have no hesitation referring to "communists", but nowhere does he mention the words "Nazis" or "SS" (which was not part of Heer, or the Nazi Germany army). There really was not much difference between the two evil totalitarian regimes other than the number of millions of people murdered, so why does he portray the Nazis in a different light? Is there bias, conscious or otherwise here? Perhaps Swedish law prevents the use of these words.
Also, it is now generally accepted by Estonian historians that president Pats was in the pay of the Soviets but this seems to have been glossed over as well.

Some of the comments smack of the skills of the infamous,13th Directorate of the Organs. The article is a broad brush overview of the White Book. Having lost relatives who were deported by the twisted, deformed personalities of the NKVD [KGB] whose slavering intent to please the psychopaths of the Stalin clique went beyond the bounds of humanity, it is my opinion that the White Book is a constant reminder to those who would ape the monsters of the past, that retribution either physically or morally is a certainty. nitpicking doesn't change the validity of the charge that a monterous crime was committed against the Estonian nation.

Yes, the article is a broad brush summary of a book. The "nitpicking" if you want to call it that seems to be against the the deficient English writing style that is alas, all too evident to those of us born outside of Estonia. Perhaps the summary is too broad and too hastily put together. If the author wanted to aim this at an audience more comfortable in English than Estonian he should have availed himself of the services of a competent English language writer. The author means well hoping to educate the younger generations to Estonia's tragic past, but unfortunately his writing style greatly detracts from the very worthwhile message. The days when an older generation person could easily deflect critical comment by ascribing them to the "organs" are long gone and likely to be met with by laughter. Readers should contrast this article with that of the International Commision Report commisioned by the late president Meri.