# Talk:392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division

"The division participated in the clearing of Partisans from the island of Korčula". Unternehmen Herbstgewitter II happened 22-26 December 1943, and no part of that division took part in it. It was conducted by two btls of Rgt 750 (118. jaeger Div.), Brandenburg Küstenjäger Bataillon, a company of 202. Pz. Bataillon, and some Artillery and Navy elements. It was conducted under V SS Corps command. 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division was under XV. Mountain Corps, far away, and it was not even introduced in combat before 1.1.44, as correctly stated in article.--Gorran (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for that please? Thanks, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 06:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
For action on Korčula: Mirko Novović, Prva Dalmatinska Proletarska NOU Brigada  pp. 242-247, Ivo Ferenca Partizani južne Dalmacije: Trinaesta južnodalmatinska narodnooslobodilačka udarna brigada, pp. 32-49... --Gorran (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you may well be right about this issue, but these individual Partisan brigade histories are really questionable as reliable secondary sources, they aren't really even third party sources. Please focus on reliable secondary sources, preferably published by university presses. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 09:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've searched for Korcula in Schraml, and there is only one mention of it (regarding a garrison battalion), so I'm going to delete it as having failed verification. Thanks, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
About WW2 events and developments in Yugoslavia, works published by military institutions are unavoidable. There are lots of works written in scientific manner, with scientific scrutiny, reviewed by people with scientific titles, published by Vojnoistorijski institut and Vojnoizdavački zavod. Comparing them with Osprey Publishing is an insult for them.--Gorran (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
And what are you basing that on? Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Vojnoistorijski institut was a scientific institution, and WW2 was in focus of it's work. Produced lots of scientific works and a number of good historians. It is now renamed to Institut za strategijska istraživanja (Institute for Strategic Studies). If you insist on dismissing Yugoslav works, I'd like to open discussion on it. I can ask my friend, who got PhD in Graz with thesis on the subject of exchanges of prisoners in Yugoslavia during WW2, to give some broader opinion on Yugoslav literature?--Gorran (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
No need for snarkiness. I don't dismiss Yugoslav works, I just avoid them (and works by Yugoslav emigres linked to one of the factions during the war) unless it's necessary because the information just isn't available elsewhere, and hopefully in those cases significant aspects can be corroborated from works by non-Yugoslavs. If it still looks dubious to me, I just don't use it. I certainly use more recent reliable sources from the countries of the former Yugoslavia, although my access to works in Cyrillic isn't good. It's pretty clear that historical work done in the former Yugoslavia by Yugoslavs between 1945 and 1980 (at the earliest) can have some things about it that are of significant concern to non-Yugoslav historians. Such things as what could be said or published at the time, propaganda and related issues. Not to say there wasn't good work done, there certainly was, but there was also stuff published which has been pretty much dismissed by international academia, and there were non-academic factors at work to some extent for at least 35 years. There is a similar issue with works done locally during and in the immediate aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars of the 90's, lots of axes to grind. So, I generally avoid them, preferring non-local sources so far as is possible. In this specific case, I was not comparing the work published by the institute with Osprey, I was questioning the value of a Yugoslav work on issues of which German units were where when. The best source for that is usually a German one, IMO, which is why I reached for Schraml, which is the key German text on the Croatian legionnaire divisions. This article stills needs some further development using Schraml to get it to the standard I'd be happy with putting up for GA, let alone MILHIST ACR. Hope that clarifies my views on this. Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 11:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
There wasn't any intention of snarkiness - I apologize if it sounds like. In fact, I think we're on the same page here, only with different levels of knowledge on different subjects. In short about works 1945-1980 in Yugoslavia: Of course, there was some level of restriction, some level of bias, of self-censorship. But, a lot of usable work is done - for example, publication of 174 books of documents from all sides (Zbornici dokumenata). It is a valuable source for researchers, you can ask Lepre :) . Further, from the sixties onwards almost all relevant German documents become available locally, in Vojnoistorijski institut (Institute for Military History) in Belgrade, namely microfilm copies from NARA - and it become standard for writing to consult and reference German documents. Researchers had benefits of both intimate knowledge of one side and documentation of the other, and that resulted in a large number of usable works from 1970 to 1990. Most Partisan units are examined in detail: for every combat action partisan view is confronted with other side documents. But the most important is abundance of personal information: virtually for every partisan combatant you have bio data about his origin, affiliation to the unit, and place and circumstance of death. And for every action you have a good account of casualties, with a list of names. Not only estimation. That kind of info was not suppressed in any way, and that is why relaying on German numbers about Partisan losses is just inappropriate. For this article Schraml is of course unavoidable source, but it is doomed to remain one-sided if not consulted books on XI Corps and 13 and 35 Division NOVJ for example. Some available on internet: Petar Kleut: JEDANAESTI KORPUS NOVJ, Petar Kleut: 35. LIČKA DIVIZIJA. Regards!--Gorran (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
No doubt Kleut's works are worth a look. Just a point of clarification on the collections of documents, of which there are many, as you say. They are collections of primary documents (sometimes translated from the German or Italian). ie Chetnik ones, Ustase ones, German ones, Nedic government ones, etc. Secondary sources written by academics that use those collections as reference material are a completely different matter, but the collections themselves are primary sources. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 12:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
True, that's reasonable. But, I think, you can sometimes consult documents to avoid dissemination of some unintentional error from literature - like in this case with Korčula. I assume nobody wants to spread other people's lapses. By the way, there's a number of that in Kleut. No book is perfect, I suppose.--Gorran (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 01:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written 
a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct
b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Here is a list of sentence or grammar errors I discovered.
1. "It was commonly known as the Blue Division" - This is not exactly an error, but the whole article only mentions the division was nicknamed "Blue Division" and not why? Their badge is composed of red, white, and black colors, so it seems rather unpredictable. Is there no information exactly why this was their nickname? Also, consider moving this sentence to the lead where the article states the divisions names.
It is mentioned in the lead... in bold. It is not clear why, neither Schraml nor other key sources explain the origin. I will keep looking.
2. "One infantry regiment and the divisional artillery regiment formed in Döllersheim" - It appears the word "was" is missing between "regiment" and "formed".
Matter of opinion regarding the grammar, but I've added "were"
3. "Generalmajor (Brigadier) Johann Mickl" - Generalmajor does not translate as "Brigadier" nor is it the English equivalent of the word. The proper translation is "Major General".
A common misconception. While that is the correct translation, Generalmajor was not equivalent to Major general, it was equivalent to a US Brigadier general in WWII. I have added an explanatory note and source that I have used in other articles.
4. "Although originally intended for use on the Eastern Front, not long after its formation the Germans decided that the division would not be utilised outside the NDH" - I know what it says, but the problem with these using-words-or-arranging-sentences-in-an-untraditional-way is that they (or can) confuse the reader. However, as this could be a matter of personal opinion, I'm only suggestion a different wording.
Not intending to act on this comment, I think it pretty clear.
5. "The division returned to the NDH in January 1944 to combat the Partisans in the territory of the puppet state" - The previous sentence mentions that the Germans would not allow the division to be "utilised outside the NDH", but this sentence says they "returned in 1944 to the NDH" which must mean they were deployed elsewhere in the Balkans. Consider changing this sentence for clarity.
Done.
6. "It was known as the "Blue Division" (German: Blaue Division, Croatian: Plava divizija)" - Since this is the last mention of the Blue Division-thing, and the fact it's already mentioned in the lead, I don't see the need for this addition. If the GA-nominator (or other editors who worked on this article) insist on keeping this addition, consider changing it so as to match to the previous sentence. Example: "The division returned to the NDH in January 1944 to combat the Partisans in the territory of the puppet state, where it became known as the "Blue Division" (German: Blaue Division, Croatian: Plava divizija).
Well, it has to be included in the body, because it is not sourced in the lead or infobox, and needs to be sourced somewhere. I'm not sure it was only known as the Blue Division after it arrived in the NDH, so I won't amalgamate the sentences in the way you suggest.
7. "The division was engaged by the Partisans" - Consider changing the word "by" with "with". I'm not even sure it's grammarly correct to say "engaged by".
It is.
8. "On 16 January, Ogulin was relieved, but the advance was continued south to Skradnik, and villages in that area were also secured" - Why the word "but"? It seems rather misleading.
well, the purpose of the operation was to relieve Ogulin, but they went further.
9. "and after some close quarter fighting with the Partisan 13th Assault Division, captured and destroyed most of that division's supply dump northwest of Lokve" - It appears the word "they" is missing in between "Division" and "captured".
Again, a matter of opinion about the grammar, but I have added it.
10. "Some of the bodies of the dead soldiers were looted or mutilated" - Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's impossible to tell if a person was mutilated alive or dead. Does Schraml's book actually mention they were dead first?
The wording doesn't imply that, they found bodies, they were mutilated.
11. "Through the spring of 1944, the 846th Regiment used jadgkommandos" - As the article has done so far, consider adding a literal English paragraph translation of jadgkommandos.
added an explanation.
12. "In April 1944, Mickl was promoted to Generalleutnant" - Also here a literal English paragraph translation would be nice. (Generalleutnant translate as "Lieutenant General").
same as generalmajor, I've added a note.
13. "on 5 May 1945, Colonel General Löhr" - Why mention the first and last name of all the other generals in the article, but not in this sentence?
Good point, fixed, with explanatory note.
Verifiable with no original research 
a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
c. It contains no original research

The article uses Harvard reverences and book sources that contain ISBN and all the other source-information required.
Broad in its coverage 
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article covers history, formation, anti-partisan activity, final battles, and order of battle. It's broad in it's coverage and does not go into unnecessary detail
Neutral 
It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

The article is neutral and does not include personal opinions.
Stable 
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is fairly stable and its content does not change significantly from day to day (with exception of improvements done in the face or preparation for the GA-nomination).
Illustrated 
a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article contain three images all of which are on Commons and created for the purpose in this article. This is just a suggestion, but I would recommend enlarging File:Krbavsko polje.JPG per the length of the sub-section its in.
Good idea, done.
Pass, fail, or hold? 
With the article meeting the GA-criteria I'm of course going to pass it. The points made in the "Well-written" section is minor issues/suggestions. Good job people. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 02:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review, Jonas. I will address those comments later today. Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
All comments addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 13:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)