[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Nachtigall Battalion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nachtigall Battalion

[edit]

Article needs to be rewritten, otherwise it violates copyright because it is taken almost word for word from the Holocaust encyclopedia published by the Wiesental centre http://motlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org/text/x16/xm1688.html . Bandurist 12:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, it copies that source faithfully. Besides, there is very little information on the battalion itself, it seems to concentrate only on alleged atrocities. If that is the subject of the article, then it should be renamed or kept balanced without WP:UNDUE. As well, connection of Nachtigall to Khatyn has not been established. Please read the cited source carefully: it mentions a police battalion made up of Ukrainians and Belarusians, not Nachtigall. Let's keep this article well balanced and not turn it into another vehicle for Ukrainian bashing. --Hillock65 13:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to take anything personal, in fact it was carried out by a politsai battalion which was formed in Kiev, my mistake... So much for brotherly love nonetheless. --Kuban Cossack 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed, you missed the fact, that the majority of that unit were Belarusians themselves. Stick to the subject of the disscussion, please. --Hillock65 14:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite accoding to several sources. However you are right that the discussion is pointless, brother! --Kuban Cossack 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandurist, do you mind reading WP:V and WP:RS? You have copied without attribution loads of material from answers.com. Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror; the page is a copy of a now deleted Wikipedia entry Ukrainische Gruppe Nachtigall. Beit Or 19:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillock65, what makes you think that galiciadivision.com is a reliable source? Beit Or 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this reference from the Dechenais comission article. I was concerned primarily with the authentic Canadian document exhibited there. If this one of the ways to disrupt the article, it won't work. I will find the same document from another source. As well, please do not insert unsubstantiated claims into the text. Thanks. --Hillock65 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If such a document exists, it can be sourced to reliable sources; galiciadivision.com is not one of them. Then, what do you believe are "unsubstamtiated claims"? If you're talking about the sentence "On their way through Zolochiv and Ternopil to the area of Vinnytsya, Nachtigall troopers participated in pogroms against Jews.", then the reference is right after the next sentence. It's online, you can easily check it. Beit Or 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the Dechenais Commission mention the Nachtigall Battalion in their report? I was unable to find any instances. Beit Or 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

Referencing to a Wikipedia mirror of a formerly deleted article at answers.com is unacceptable. Wikipedia, especially its deleted content, is not a reliable source. Further, Alfred-Maurice de Zayas is not a mainstream historian and is widely viewed controversial. Therefore, references made to him have to be reconfirmed to mainstream works. --Irpen 01:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't referenced to a Wikipedia mirror. This is an incorrect assumption of my colleague. Regarding de Zayas book. He is a historian. He is in the mainstream and notwithstanding criticism from a few historians, his works Nemesis at Potsdam and The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau were well received in the academic community, and are used in colleges and universities, and remain in print thirty years after their initial publication, in the 14th and 7th revised and updated editions, respectively". Bandurist 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to answers.com is a reference to a Wikipedia mirror. Worse, it is a reference to a deleted article.
Zayas is widely viewed controversial and if his writings contradict those of other historians, he cannot be used.
Here are some refs from mainstream works:
"The [Nachtigall] was responsible for the massacre of thousands of Jews, Poles, and democratically minded Ukrainians in the Lviv region om the hills of the German invasion. The [Roland] assisted the Einsatzgruppen operating in the Souther Ukraine. Together, they served as an anitpartisan force in Belorussia where they murdered thousands of innocent villagers."
From Saul S. Friedman, "Holocaust Literature: A Handbook of Critical, Historical, and Literary Writings", Greenwood Press (1993), ISBN 0313262217, p. 287
"No sooner did the Nachtigal formation entered Lviv, than the killing began. Armed with a blacklist prepared by Oberländer, Bandera, Stesko and Shukhevych, death squads rounded up hundreds of suspected communists, Soviet functionaries, Polish scholars and Jewish intellectuals and put them against the wall. "
From Sol Littman, "Pure Soldiers Or Sinister Legion: The Ukrainian 14th Waffen-SS Division", Black Rose Books, 1993, ISBN 1551642182, p. 26
"To properly evaluate Nachtigall's role, one must be aware that after the unit left Lviv on July 7, it proceeded to Solochev, Ternopil, Prokurov, Zhytomyr and Vinnytsia. Terrible slaughters of civilian population followed their arrival in each of these towns."
From Sol Littman p. 30
"During the following days of chaos it became obvious to the Germans, that Bandera's followers, including those in the Nachtigall regiment, displayed considerable initiative, conducting purges and pogroms."
From Alexander Dallin, "German Rule in Russia, 1941-1945: A Study of Occupation Policies", Westview Press, 1981, ISBN 0865311021, p. 119
Now, please do not revert anymore to the whitewashing version. --Irpen 04:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What ever your personal opinions of de Zayas are, he is a source who is published by a creditable institution, a University publishing house, rather than a mom and pop operation.

But here are some of the reviews of the work cited:

"De Zayas is undoubtedly one of the world's leading legal scholars addressing forced population transfers ... [his] work provides massive confirmation of the truism that atrocities are committed in war by all sides, that many go unpunished, and some are part of national policy....the possibility that truth might be misused in argument by the devil is not a reason to suppress truth. I have no personal doubt that this book is a useful attempt to preserve an important truth. By writing it, the author -- whose own humanitarian sympathies are beyond question, as is Levie's scholarly detachment --has done a service to scholarship." Alfred Rubin in The Fletcher Forum

"The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1495 is a fascinating book. It is well-organized and elegantly written ... a sobering new look at the Second World War and ourselves .. With the appearance of this new book ... our innocence comes to an official end." Arnold Krammer, Journal of Soviet Military Studies

"The facts were painstakingly researched by the author. Archives were consulted and cross-checked and survivors interviewed. It is an academic job well done, and a must for students of small islands of sanity in the ocean of madness called war" Lt.-Gen. G.C. Berkhof, Netherlands International Law Review

"thoroughly and skillfully researched"- Col. Ernest Fischer in Army

"This well-written book, which is based on thorough research of original sources... triggered a broad discussion... It is timely and necessary to discuss the legal, sociological and psychological problems involved in the investigation of war crimes during and after armed conflicts." Dieter Fleck, in Archiv des Völkerrechts

"Dr. de Zayas first came upon the previously undiscovered 226 volumes of WUSt documents as a Fulbright fellow on leave from his studies in International Law at Harvard. After concluding his legal studies, de Zayas subsequently earned a Ph.D. in history and the University of Göttingen, where he later became an associate. The Institute supported the research on which this study is based and arranged for the assistance of a Dutch international law specialist, Dr. Walter Rabus ... Mindful that the WUSt might have been manipulated by Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry, the authors were punctilious in their verification. They carefully examined the documents for internal consistency and continuity and then verified the reports and testimony, where possible, with judges, medical examiners and witnesses still alive. In addition, they compared WUSt documents with those of other German agencies in seven additional German archives, and with documents in British,.Dutch, Swiss, and American archives. In this exhaustive analysis, it becomes clear that the WUSt operated with scrupulous objectivity and therefore that its documents constitute a valuable new source for the study of the conduct of war. This carefully documented administrative history together with its excellent bibliography will therefore become an important introduction to this extensive archive. The Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle is at once an interesting history of an internal agency of the Third Reich and an important archival and historiographical contribution to the study of the war." German Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1981), pp. 150-151.

"a well-founded book" Professor Norman Stone in the Sunday Times, London

"an excellent book" Professor Christopher Greenwood in The Cambridge Law Journal


"an important book" Professor L.F.E. Goldie in the American Journal of International Law

What strikes me is the following passage:

An international commission was set up at The Hague in the Netherlands to carry out independent investigations. The members were four former anti-Hitler activists, Norwegian lawyer Hans Cappelen, former Danish foreign minister and president of the Danish parliament Ole Bjørn Kraft, Dutch socialist Karel van Staal, Belgian law professor Flor Peeters, and Swiss jurist and member of parliament Kurt Scoch. Following its interrogation of a number of Ukrainian witnesses between November 1959 and March 1960, the commission concluded: "After four months of inquiries and the evaluation of 232 statements by witnesses from all circles involved, it can be established that the accusations against the Battalion Nachtigall and against the then Lieutenant and currently Federal Minister Oberländer have no foundation in fact.

This passage would not have appeared if it were untrue. Bandurist 12:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact that the work being cited ("The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945") draws on the Nazi army's own self-investigations isn't immediately disqualifying, this sentence from the introductory text of the source should put it beyond the pale (emphasis added for the willingly blind)
The more accurate picture that emerges from a consideration of a diversity of writings is that the period prior to German occupation was dedicated to the mass killing by the Jewish-dominated NKVD of Ukrainians and Poles, and that any Ukrainian-Polish anti-Jewish pogroms followed German occupation, were in retaliation for the NKVD massacres, and were of comparatively small scale.
Again, the "diversity of writings" here refers to the Nazis' own "investigations", where they are attempting to frame the holocaust as self-defense.
On a more trivial level, it is also in this context that the qualification that the post-war investigators were "anti-Hitler" makes sense; as written it just sounds silly / redundant, like calling a prosecutor "anti-crime", but given that the rest of the source is citing exculpatory claims from explicitly and unabashedly pro-Hitler sources, this makes more sense. 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:7542:4896:F14A:D7BF (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Sol Littman a credible source????? During the Deschenes Commission under oath, Sol Littman testified that his "documentation" to support his outrageous allegation that Josef Mengele had entered Canada, was "analyzed" by two "retired" civil servants, but that both had "exacted" from his a pledge not to reveal their names.

Under threat of a criminal charge, he did reveal their names as Al Naylor and Corporal Fred Yetter. Under oath, Naylor testified that he had analyzed no document for Littman nor had he exacted any pledge of confidentially [Vol. 25, p3446] --- he had never seen the documentation until it was shown to his by the commission [Vol. 25, p3426]. He also testified that Littman deliberately made up his "retired" status in order to deceive the Deschenes Commission [Vol. 23, p3417]. Inquiring minds would like to know why Littman was never charged with perjury for lying to a Royal Commission.

I don't think he is credible. Bandurist 16:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing the disputed tag

[edit]

It appears that this article presents all the relevant information. There is no "white-washing", just a presentation of facts.

All facts are cited and referenced.

Thanks, Horlo 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have the tag removed, but I didn't place it there. I'm just amazed that the bulk of the material came out of a anti-Ukrainian Russian language book I picked up in May at Boryspil Airport. The thing is - it was very well researched and put together by a former KGB historian. Bandurist 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the problem with removing the tag, should there be no clear evidence to oppose doing so?

Thanks, Horlo 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I see no problem with the article. It seems well sourced and factual, the tag is unnecessary in my view. Martintg (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case who then is allowed to remove the tag, and by the way - who put it there in the first place and why? СКОБ Bandurist (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen placed the tag [1]. Since a lot of editing has been done since the tag placement, I think you can be WP:BOLD and remove the tag. You will soon find out if anyone objects. Martintg (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to remove the tag

[edit]

Any objections? If so, please state why so that we can work to resolve them.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - I didn't even notice it was gone.

Horlo (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been playing too much pool Bandurist (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC) No such thing. Horlo (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nachtigall video

[edit]

Interesting video about Machtigall on U-tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q0NFUGhN0U Bandurist (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

[edit]

Content aside, the 'Controversies' section is just weirdly organized. Who exactly is "The Polish side", who is "The Russian side"? Is this a reference to some specific conference, committee, trial or publication? If not, then it needs to be rewritten in an encylopedic manner. The section also uses many NPOV "words to avoid" [2], like "alleges", "contends" etc. which should be replaced with simple "says" and "states" (I did a few then noted the controversy on the talk page and paused to write this first).radek (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuyev as a source

[edit]

Does appeared [3] any new data instead of mentioned here [4]? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuyev is widely quoted on ruwiki. No problem there apparently. There you go.--Galassi (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you suggest a source which suggest his scholar credential and indicate him as graduated historian or sole representative of the The Russian side (as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nachtigall_Battalion&diff=391423453&oldid=391423257]) ? Could you also indicate a source for World opinion: - about commission established by Oberländer request . Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper name and translation

[edit]

The German wiki has a different German name and this page's German translation doesn't sync up with the English. Someone care to clarify this?--Львівське (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A revert

[edit]

Woul be nice [6] to explain - source citation here [7] suggest

The skills acquired in 1941-1942 became useful in the UPA’s ethnic cleansing of the Poles of Volhynia.[41] In the spring of 1943, the men of the Schutzmannschaft battalion 201, who had crossed over from Belarus to Volhynia came to constitute the heart of the OUN(b) security service, the Sluzhba Bezpeki, or SB, under Mykola Lebed, who also led the OUN until August 1943.[42] Other officers of Schutzmannschaft battalion 201 became officers in the Waffen SS Galizien

- Balyanovskyy itself provide information about specifically about officers - so 14 out 20 - it's called most. Whats wrong with later to Neuhammer? Also Source does not suggest As the result, the battalion was recalled to Cracow and disarmed on August 15 - it gives an info about disarming of the privates during transportation - officers were not disarmed - weapons to all were returned by end of September (delay caused by the information about desertion intent)- see pages 369 Jo0doe (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nachtigall Battalion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish side contends ?

[edit]

Unsourced. There are different opinions, one of them is that the soldiers arrested but didn't kill.Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That whole segment is strangely written. Purporting that one obscure study represents 'world opinion', and lowering the Wiesenthal Center, which is widely regarded as authorative to below opinions from Ukraine & Canada, the former of which has been found lying about this topic repeatedly is in my view utterly unencyclopaedic.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diferences in the given sizes of the batalions

[edit]

--Sean P Marshall (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)you indicate a size below 1000 (when?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera gives a size of 7000 (again no indication about when...)[reply]

how to resolve this...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nachtigall_Battalion&oldid=1212543503"