Talk:Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II

message: To me it is a story of one particular formation of cossacks who were nothing else but Nazi collaborators [ This is partisan ranting and not helpful - does the author include all the thousands of women and children raped and massacred by the Soviets in this?] . The brutality of Stalin's regime is undisputed, but the story is about the capture and , yes, transfer to Stalin, a group of people who killed Jews, Russians, Bellorusians, Ukrainians, Poles and Slovenians. I have no pitty for them at all. KS 
To be blunt, what you think doesn't matter. 
(1) The sources in question allege that the 'relevant' Cossacks included significant numbers of civilians and non-combatants. 
(2) Decossackization entailed massive pogroms against the Cossack people, and Stalin's campaigns against the Cossacks and peasantry is a history of genocide that rivals--if NOT EXCEEDS--the Shoa. Therefore, even those Cossacks who collaborated with the Nazis have at least *understandable* reasons for doing so. Let us take, in the Western imagination, the most moral state on Earth: Israel, and look at some of its bedfellows, hmm? What if we were to judge it by some of the more sordid allies it has found in its quest for survival (rabid Christian militias, dissident Arab extremists, etc)? Your reasoning is invalid, and your lack of 'pitty'--can be written off as either crass ignorance of the topic or simple callousness towards people you do not understand and have never met. 
(3) Thirdly, your suggestion that the Cossacks at Lienz et al, were involved in ethnic banditry during the chaos of the 10's-20's evinces a shallow understanding of who the Cossacks are, and ideas of 'ethnic culpability' in general. Consider--do I go on articles regarding the Shoa and tell everyone that I have no 'pitty' for the Yidden because of mongrels like Iagoda, Fritz Haber, and Salomen Morel?--no. Decisions, right or wrong, are made by an individual and depend on personal circumstance--if a Cossack is implicated in a pogrom, innocent Cossack emigres that just barely escaped genocide in their own country shouldn't have to suffer for it.
Please understand the material before spewing your contempt all over the internet. 
Let me assure you that I am well-aware of the subject as a grandson of Kuban cossack family half of which was "decossacked" and the other half was fighting nazies on eastern front. I am not being "ignorant" or "spreading contempt" for that matter. Quite to the contrary, I am saying that this is a controversial subject and offering my own view point which anyone has a right to. And it respectuflly remains my opinion that the cossacks who comitted war crimes in Poland, Slovakia, Yugoslavia and Ukraine and collaborated with Nazies deserved no better faith. That said, civilians being killed by Soviet troops is a disgrace. But there is no justification for those who fought against partizans and Warsaw uprisers. There is an article on wikipedia entitled Nazi Collaborators. If you read it, you will know that people had no pitty (and that the word i used) for such collaborators across europe and many were executed by the people on public squares at the time. would you call these mass murders? Also, since you mentioned Israel, let me say (as someone who is intimately familiar with Israel and has a large family over there) that the term "betrayal" of Nazi collaborators does not fly well in that country as there are people who actually suffered from these collaborators and will never change their opinion. Same applies to Polish and former Yugoslavian people's perception and collective memory. Let me suggest that French ressistance fighters would do exactly the same to these cossacks if they got into their hands at the end of the war. I hope you are not suggesting double standards here. Again, the death of the civilians is a different story and reflects Stalin's policy of total extermination of the enemies, which cannot be justified. And to be completely blunt, let me perhaps suggest that what I think does actually matter (as does your point of view as well as the one of others as this is what dispute page is for), even if you may not like it. Sincerely, KS
You're still an idiot who cannot spell 'pity' correctly. Even so, your response is a web of equivocations where you attempt to equate Cossacks fighting for Cossackdom with Nazi purists. Perhaps people didn't have pity for them. Ignorant people are always sparing with their pity, true. But even people who collaborated--from the most vile Kapo (Jews who collaborated by taking jobs in prison camps and occupied ghettos)--deserve to have their point of view understood. We are discussing one of the most extreme periods in human history, and a heavy-handed moralism is not helpful to real historiography.
Would I call them 'mass murders'? Uh, yeah: they were murders en mass, that's pretty much the definition of mass murder. This wouldn't happen anywhere in the civilized world today. Even to the Nuremberg prisoners--the most authentic Nazis in Germany--we gave these people a real trial. 
You're rewriting history by assuming what the French resistance fighters would do, and its incredibly annoying. Editors like you have no place in the wikiverse. CB 
CB, 
Nobody gave you a right to call anyone an "idiot". I am not even getting angry but the low level of your rethorics make me think you are not worth arguing with. Expressions like "to be blunt what you think doesn't matter" do speak to your level of intelligence, which i will leave to others to comment. Your degrading to personal level is highly, hum, what would be the right word, unprofessional at the best. 
As to my point and your emotions apart, yes, these Cossacks (the active adult part of them, at least) are indeed Nazi collaborators. Like it or not. How they got there is a different story. And yes, they should have deserved a trial. Too bad there was none (fair and open) in Stalin's USSR). Their armed fighting on the side of Hitler does make them Allies' enemies. They are not a friendly force by any measurement.
I am not sure what your analogy with "French resistance fighters" was supposed to mean. Whatever that was, I have high respect for these people, who are forever remembered for their courage and determination in France and elsewhere. So at a minimum I should take your analogy as a compliment. 
May I suggest that yourself, for all your calling me names, ridiculing my arguments and myself personally have no right to be in the wikiverse. And well-redone article as it stands now. Whoever did the final editing, changed the name of the article and re-wrote the content, deserves a credit. 
KS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.27.140 (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The relevant research has been comprehensively undertaken by Count Nikolai Tolstoy-Miloslavksy, a descendant of Count Lev Tolstoy, the famous writer.
Count Tolstoy's research is painstaking and meticulous and cites all sources very extensively and fully, taking them from government files in the West and now from the Soviet Union files. No-one has written a satisfactory rebuttal of his research nor, indeed, any rebuttal at all.
The Libel action brought by Lord Aldington in 1989 against Count Tolstoy and Mr Watts concerned a pamphlet circulated by Mr Watts and did not relate to any of Count Tolstoy's books which have never - repeat never - been challenged in the courts.
It is quite clear that the Cossacks were, indeed, betrayed and that largely by officials of the British government, particularly some in the Foreign Office. It is also quite clear that the Foreign Office illegally ordered the return to the Soviet Union of a very large number of Cossack and other emigres, knowing that they would be shot or imprisoned but also knowing that this would partially appease Stalin. British Special Forces units were tasked with the hand-over and witnessed many Cossacks and emigres being shot by the NKVD.
It is probable that this may have been a secret arrangement concluded at or after Yalta by Soviet-friendly officials in the British government, since British officialdom was, at that time, heavily infiltrated by fellow-travellers and others sympathetic to the Soviet Union, like the spies and traitors, Burgess, Philby and McLean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.45.151 (talk • contribs) 
These men were serving the enemy of their own state during war. Women and children were non-combatants, but they were Soviet citizens. I fail to see how handing them over to their own state can be considered illegal. On the other hand, according to the laws of virtually any country at the time, defecting to the enemy and fighting against your own state was treason, and punishable by death.
The facts may be accurate, but the whole slant of the article, starting with the title, is one of the most POV I have ever seen. Glad it did not make a good article. I'll consider renaming it to something like "Fate of Cossack Soviet Citizens Serving the Enemy in WWII".
212.216.210.234 07:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose naming it "Fate of Cossack Soviet Citizens Serving the Enemy in WWII". For one the title is confusing and misleading.  It implies that all of the Cossacks and other ethnic Russians that were "repatriated" were Soviet Citizens, which many were not according to most, if not all, historians.  Many left before the Russian Revolution and were never Soviet citizens.  Secondly, the phrase "Serving the Enemy" is confusing.  Whose enemy, the Soviets' enemy? (that could be the U.S.) the Allies' enemy? (that could be Japan?) In this situation you have to look at it from a different view than Axis vs. Allies because the Cossacks that  fought against the Soviet Union did not consider themselves as part of the Axis. They did not consider the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and other Allied powers their enemies.  I think if this title is seriously going to be changed, it would need to be something similar to "Cossack Repatriations of World War II". ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 12:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is good reference to most historians stating that most of the Cossacks were not Soviet citizens JSTOR. It is a review of two works about the forced repatriations or "Operation Keelhaul".  One work is "Operation Keelhaul: The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present. by Julius Epstein, Bertram D. Wolfe" Julius Epstein is considered a leading authority on the subject. The other work is "The Last Secret: The Delivery to Stalin of over Two Million Russians by Britain and the United States. by Nicholas Bethell, Hugh Trevor-Roper". There are many other references to this fact by historians, politicians, and authors.  If many of these people were not Soviet citizens then the enemy question becomes more ambiguous. The Soviet Union was not there state so they could be at war with any number of people.  I am still seeking out a title that is completely NPOV but am having trouble. As is stated below, Cossack Repatriations implies that they were Soviet citizens, which we have discussed.  Lienz cossacks has been considered but it makes it seem as though Lienz was their host. So I am trying to find some scholarly articles using neutral names but it is tough as the author is usually slanted one way. If you were curious, I named the article because that is the name of the famous painting of the event in Lienz and is therefore what I grew up knowing it as.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is already neutral and fair - read the research and see for yourself

message: Although to me a cossack, this is a touching piece, I must urge for it to be NPOVed. You must remember that at the same time hunderds of thousands of ethnic Cossacks fought for the Red Army against the nazis whether being in Cossack regiments or in others, and the tone that this article sets for how our motherland is portrayed is unacceptable and if I was more skeptical I would have given this article a thorough filtering. However since it is unfinished, I shall wait for a while and urge the author to NPOV and expand the section... The whole of my family fought for my motherland in Cossack regiments. --Kuban kazak 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article definitely needs a new title because the word 'betrayal' is strongly pov. --Tomato 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: White army and Red army in sense of the Russian civil war? Then that is rather irrelevant, except for those people who fought twice against the Soviet Union. Now I am talking about those Cossacks who, once their land has been occupied made the choice of collaborating. This article should clearly mention that they only compromised a minority, that most Cossacks fought for the Red Army (athough the majority did not fight in Cossack regiments, that is true). Finally it should also mention the 1950s pardon of the Soviet Govenment.--Kuban Cossack 09:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Having read Pyotr Krasnov I suggest the assertion here that he was never a Soviet citizen is incorrect. He was taken prisoner during the Kerensky-Junker plot and was then released after promising "never to do it again". A promise he broke almost immediately.
On the other hand, the Shkuro case is different. As I suppose will be the case with many others.
Many of these people committed heinous war crimes, not necessarily in the Soviet Union (Yugoslavia comes to mind, and the Warsaw Uprising). Which does not mean that one crime deserves another, but puts things into perspective. --pgp 12:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Soviet citizens? 

message: Pretty POV. Still, it covers an interesting aspect of the policy of forced soviet repatriation in the aftermath of the second world war. I'd recomend deleting the sensationlist parts, citing sources carefully, and using hard numbers rather than generalizations. I'll try to launch into a little bit of cleanup, but I suspect the  big cleanup guns are going to have to come from our cyrillic reading wikipedians who have more plentiful access to specific sources.
--Irongaard 02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The POV! It's Blinding! 

message: Since it seems to be agreed that this article needs a new title, how about Cossacks after WWII.  Most of this information could be transferred there and more information about cossacks that fought for the allies could be added.  This would also get rid of the POV title and give an opportunity to further NPOV the article in the move.--Joe Jklin (T C) 04:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong oppose. Cossacks after WWII is a direct insult to millions of Cossack descendents who fought in the Red Army ranks. This article deals with a single group of those people and should be mentioned. I propose that it be moved to Lienz Cossacks, as that is directely relevant title and has been applied several times in English--Kuban Cossack  09:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like the word 'betrayal' comes from Tolstoy's book and thus it can't be considered an accepted scholarly name of these events. Other possible variants are "Post-WW2 Cossack repatriations", "Lienz Cossack repatriation", "Post-WW2 Cossack transfer" and "Lienz Cossack transfer". Alæxis¿question? 11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That is why I mentioned that information about cossacks that fought for the allies (which includes the Red Army) would need to be included in the article.  Currently the only mention that I can find of cossacks after or during WWII is here. I just think it's a chance to mention the cossack's parts on both sides of WWII--Joe Jklin (T C) 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Forced return of Cossacks after WWII"? "Forced repatriation of Cossacks after WWII" might be clearer, but would tend to imply that they were all Soviet citizens. Jbhood 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the title is fine.  The problem is the sub-titles.  It seems to me to br wrong to imply that the betrayal was at a single camp, or two camps, and that it was a betrayal by Britain.  Both major allied agreed with the USSR to return all cossacks.  America is as guilty as Britain.  Ultimately we must remember that Uncle Joe was the villain of the piece.124.197.15.138 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Title proposal 

message: Maybe this should be moved to operation keelhaul, just under the sub title of "Cossacks."
:Strong Oppose as the Cossack story is far greater than the story of Operation Keelhaul. Also this article is still fairly POV on what is a very sensitive subject. Rgds, - Trident13 11:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was all ethnic Russians that were repatriated, including women, children, and elderly.~ Joe Jklin (T C)
 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: move to Operation Keelhaul?

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?][?]
*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?][?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?][?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**is considered
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with THE FOOTNOTE. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add .[?][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?][?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AndyZ peerreviewer

message: This seems inconsistent with the article on Andrey Vlaslov which does not indicate that he was ever in the United States.
=== Other locations ===
==== Fort Dix, New Jersey, United States ====
While this event is often viewed as occurring only on European soil, it also occurred across the Atlantic Ocean at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Andrey Vlasov, a man who repeatedly voiced objections against Nazism and communism, was one of the men captured by American forces. His conversation with his American captor was described by Sven Steenberg in his book  "Wlassow - Verräter oder Patriot?" He began to speak, at first slowly and dispassionately, but then with growing intensity. For one last time, he spoke of all the prospects, hopes, and disappointments of his countrymen. He summed up everything for which countless Russians had fought and suffered. It was no longer really to the American that he was addressing himself — this was rather a confession, a review of his life, a last protest against the destiny that had brought him to a wretched end. . . . Vlasov stated that the leaders of the ROA were ready to appear before an international court, but that it would be a monumental injustice to turn them over to the Soviets and thereby to certain death. It was not a question of volunteers who had served the Germans, but of a political organization, of a broad opposition movement which, in any event, should not be dealt with under military law.
Andrey Vlasov was hanged August 2, 1946 for "treason as well as active espionage and terrorist activity against the Soviet Union."
Roadrunner 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, they refused to leave their barracks when ordered to do so...
Andrey Vlasov — the man who hated communism — the man who hated Nazism — carefully explained his position and reasoning to the American generals.
So it seems as though he might have been there, I do not know personally. However, Russian POWs were held at Fort Dix, New Jersey so the section should stay (which I'll add back) the Vlasov issue should be looked further into though.--Iosef U T C 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with location 

message: ==== Fort Dix, New Jersey, United States ====
While this event is often viewed as occurring only on European soil, it also occurred across the Atlantic Ocean at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Andrey Vlasov, a man who repeatedly voiced objections against Nazism and communism, was one of the men captured by American forces. His conversation with his American captor was described by Sven Steenberg in his book  "Wlassow - Verräter oder Patriot?" He began to speak, at first slowly and dispassionately, but then with growing intensity. For one last time, he spoke of all the prospects, hopes, and disappointments of his countrymen. He summed up everything for which countless Russians had fought and suffered. It was no longer really to the American that he was addressing himself — this was rather a confession, a review of his life, a last protest against the destiny that had brought him to a wretched end. . . . Vlasov stated that the leaders of the ROA were ready to appear before an international court, but that it would be a monumental injustice to turn them over to the Soviets and thereby to certain death. It was not a question of volunteers who had served the Germans, but of a political organization, of a broad opposition movement which, in any event, should not be dealt with under military law.
Andrey Vlasov was hanged August 2, 1946 for "treason as well as active espionage and terrorist activity against the Soviet Union."
Roadrunner 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, they refused to leave their barracks when ordered to do so...
Andrey Vlasov — the man who hated communism — the man who hated Nazism — carefully explained his position and reasoning to the American generals.
So it seems as though he might have been there, I do not know personally. However, Russian POWs were held at Fort Dix, New Jersey so the section should stay (which I'll add back) the Vlasov issue should be looked further into though.--Iosef U T C 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other locations 

message: While this event is often viewed as occurring only on European soil, it also occurred across the Atlantic Ocean at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Andrey Vlasov, a man who repeatedly voiced objections against Nazism and communism, was one of the men captured by American forces. His conversation with his American captor was described by Sven Steenberg in his book  "Wlassow - Verräter oder Patriot?" He began to speak, at first slowly and dispassionately, but then with growing intensity. For one last time, he spoke of all the prospects, hopes, and disappointments of his countrymen. He summed up everything for which countless Russians had fought and suffered. It was no longer really to the American that he was addressing himself — this was rather a confession, a review of his life, a last protest against the destiny that had brought him to a wretched end. . . . Vlasov stated that the leaders of the ROA were ready to appear before an international court, but that it would be a monumental injustice to turn them over to the Soviets and thereby to certain death. It was not a question of volunteers who had served the Germans, but of a political organization, of a broad opposition movement which, in any event, should not be dealt with under military law.
Andrey Vlasov was hanged August 2, 1946 for "treason as well as active espionage and terrorist activity against the Soviet Union."
Roadrunner 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, they refused to leave their barracks when ordered to do so...
Andrey Vlasov — the man who hated communism — the man who hated Nazism — carefully explained his position and reasoning to the American generals.
So it seems as though he might have been there, I do not know personally. However, Russian POWs were held at Fort Dix, New Jersey so the section should stay (which I'll add back) the Vlasov issue should be looked further into though.--Iosef U T C 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Dix, New Jersey, United States 

message: Its been there for ages, I see no reason for continuing to hold it... the controversy tag on the talk page is sufficient IMO...--Kuban Cossack 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: According to the Vlasov article and every work that I know of, Vlasov was never in the United States.  He was held by the Americans in Europe.
Roadrunner 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Fort Dix again 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 28, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  Alongside a general need to review the article per the Manual of Style, the introduction is not a concise overview of the entire article. Things such as the simple statistics need to be included, mostly as part of asserting the notability of the event in an obvious way. The article in general does a poor job of stating the obvious, and needs better transitions between paragraphs and topics.
:2. Factually accurate?:  The article has a common problem, which is that it has a basic modicum of good sources but suffers from proper inline citations to those sources. A cite at the end of each paragraph and for quotations is the bare minimum. Citations to any fact likely to be challenged (see WP:V) is desirable, especially for a "good article". Every section now present in the article requires more thorough citations.
:3. Broad in coverage?:  The article would seem to cover all of the major points of interest in a focused way. The Aftermath section could do with some expansion however.
:4. Neutral point of view?:  This is most egregious violation of the quick-fail criteria in the article. Without solid references verifying that the incident is called the "Betrayal of the Cossacks" by a clear-cut majority of significant published sources, it is a clearly non-neutral thing to call the incident a betrayal. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily impossible or untrue, but without proper attribution it is not kosher. I suggest that if no sources verifying this are provided, then the article be renamed to "Status of the Cossacks following World War II" or the like. This states a little more clearly the "what" and "when" of the event, without making a moral judgment. Other areas where there is also obviously non-neutral treatment are rampant in the introduction and body of the article. Attribution of statements which are similar to "...many innocent people -- ones who never fought against the Allies -- were handed over as well." might result in a more acceptable article, though toning down the partisan language is still necessary.
:5. Article stability?  Not the subject of any major on-going conflicts.
:6. Images?:  Present and accounted for with proper licenses and fair-use rationales.
As the article meets one or more of the quick-fail criteria, I have failed it without a hold period for minor improvements.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— VanTucky Talk 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with some points. I just tried to remove labeling all Cossacks as "pro-Nazi" in this article per WP:NPOV, but user Kuban Cosak reverted all my edits at once. It is very unusual that someone who claims to be a Cossack himself wants to describe Cossacks as "pro-Nazi".Biophys (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: Cossacs were also in Carinthia (Oderdrauburg), like von Pannwitz himself, in smaller villages such as Tristach, Amlach and Lavant.
-Phips 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It was not only Lienz

message: War crimes of the cossacks in question should be depicted--Dojarca (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes 

message: Notwithstanding the dispute about the POV of the article itself, the use of Hornberger's website is worrying to me - it's hardly NPOV either (and I wonder about the use of almost direct quotes from his site in the article text itself without verification). Also, most of the the parts quoted from his website are originally from Epstein's book - surely better to cite the book in the first place (might involve a trip to the library, though!). – sHtev (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hornberger 

message: If there is an indisputable fact here it's that certain Cossacks were Nazi sympathizers and collaborators as well as actively engaged in combat at times and killed allies.  These were the Allies enemies during the war as well as traitors to the Russians.  We can sit here and cite historical text all day long, but it is undeniable that that group Betrayed the Allied forces during the war.  And they deserved what they got.  Soldiers aren't the only ones who fight wars, civilians do too.  They support the cause.  All traitors...civilian and military alike should burn at the stake. A traitor is like a cancer...you need to eliminate it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.30.203 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me assure you that I am well-aware of the subject as a grandson of Kuban cossack family half of which was "decossacked" and the other half was fighting nazies on eastern front. I am not being "ignorant" or "spreading contempt" for that matter. Quite to the contrary, I am saying that this is a controversial subject and offering my own view point which anyone has a right to. And it respectuflly remains my opinion that the cossacks who comitted war crimes in Poland, Slovakia, Yugoslavia and Ukraine and collaborated with Nazies deserved no better faith. That said, civilians being killed by Soviet troops is a disgrace. But there is no justification for those who fought against partizans and Warsaw uprisers. There is an article on wikipedia entitled Nazi Collaborators. If you read it, you will know that people had no pitty (and that the word i used) for such collaborators across europe and many were executed by the people on public squares at the time. would you call these mass murders? Also, since you mentioned Israel, let me say (as someone who is intimately familiar with Israel and has a large family over there) that the term "betrayal" of Nazi collaborators does not fly well in that country as there are people who actually suffered from these collaborators and will never change their opinion. Same applies to Polish and former Yugoslavian people's perception and collective memory. Let me suggest that French ressistance fighters would do exactly the same to these cossacks if they got into their hands at the end of the war. I hope you are not suggesting double standards here. Again, the death of the civilians is a different story and reflects Stalin's policy of total extermination of the enemies, which cannot be justified. And to be completely blunt, let me perhaps suggest that what I think does actually matter (as does your point of view as well as the one of others as this is what dispute page is for), even if you may not like it. Sincerely, KS   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.122.114 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "All traitors...civilian and military alike should burn at the stake. A traitor is like a cancer...you need to eliminate it. ". So much for someone from New York. This is called a collective punishment without trial. Executing "by the people on public squares" is known as Lynching. That's a bad thing. Someone from New Jersey should know.Biophys (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet you judge and classify anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist separatist people that the Nazis managed to line up on their own side against the oppressive colonizer and imperialist that was oppressing said people, and you judge and classify said people for not being on the side of their colonizers and imperialists and oppressors, against the Nazis. "Oh, but those people did bad things against others who had been raised up, by those same colonizers and imperialists, to fight so that the colonizers and imperialists could win and decimate that separatist people, therefore we must distort truth and convey that only the separatist people were bad and all the separatist people were bad because otherwise it is POV" - listen to how ridiculous that sounds. So much self-righteous moralism and bias. 7 million dead in the Ukraine in the Holodomor mean nothing to you, but the Palikrowy_massacre does? Or what about the British letting 4 million Indians starve in the Bengal Famine, or doing they did in the Middle East? After all, it prevent another separatist people from joining the Axis.. It will be fun to see what historians think about all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B019:CEC7:997F:C1B:B0AE:D10F (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Collaborators 

message: Several problems with this article, have been identified, but the biggest is the title.  I propose moving it to "Repatriation of Cossacks after WWII". PatGallacher (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that current title is bad. Most precise title would be Extradition of Cossacks, with different versions like Extradition of Cossacks to the Soviet Union, Extradition of Cossacks from Europe, Extradition of Cossacks after WWII, and so on. "Forceful evacuation" would be probably worse than "Extradition". More opinions needed.Biophys (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Cossack units fighting against the Warsaw Uprising:
*Schutzmannschaft 209
*206 (?)
*3 Regiment, Iakov Bondarenko
*IV/57 Regiment
*69 Kosaken Abteilung, Schlachtermund
*572 Infantry Battalion, Zinoviev 
*579 
, 
If the "repatriated" Cosacks are accused, we should check, if they participated. Certainly women and children didn't participate.
Xx236 (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warsaw Uprising 

message: People living ouside the SU were also deported. Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a "Repatriation" 

message: I do not claim to know the motivation of everyone on the Western Allies' side involved in the repatriation, but some may have seen them as traitors who the Russians were entitled to execute or sentence to lengthy imprisonment.  Several people were executed or imprisoned for lengthy periods by Britain after the war, including William Joyce who was hanged on a very broad interpretation of who had a duty of loyalty to Britain, so some may have considered that the Ryssians were also entitled to take a broad view of who had a duty of loyalty.  In normal parlance you talk about someone betraying their country, not betraying their state.  These people had chosen to define themselves as Russians by fighting with Russian units, when they could have joined other units fighting on the German side.  It is not clear that even if some of them had left Russia prior to the formation of the USSR in 1922 they were not Soviet citizens, since the USSR was surely the successor state to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, formed in 1917, although it may be less clear if the RSFSR was the successor state to the previous Russian state. PatGallacher (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied motivation 

message: There is a citation needed tag on Bond's line - I am certain he said those exact words in the movie in the scene where he meets with Zukovsky, so if I can pinpoint the exact time in the movie would that be enough for a citation? 199.20.117.176 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: GoldenEye

message: There is an account of his fathers life in the autobiography of D'Arbeloff. Among those former Russians sent by the Americans to the Soviet Union was a naturalized citizen. Vladimir D'Arbeloff  a Georgian volunteered for the United States military. Due to his ability to speak Russian he was assigned to guard the Cossack prisoners of war. When the Cossack prisoners were being guarded and negotiated for by the Allies D'Arbeloff was one of the officers who interacted with the Soviets. At the time the Soviets received incarcerated prisoners some of the Soviets and Americans arranged to have D'Arbeloff misdescribed. This was despite his never having served with the Germans at all.RichardBond (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vladimir D'Arbeloff 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928204604/http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/cossacks.htm to http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/cossacks.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206174656/http://www.itcmarchetti.net/Sito%20con%20Frame/THE%20WAR.htm to http://www.itcmarchetti.net/Sito%20con%20Frame/THE%20WAR.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516044735/http://www.bu.edu/jeremymb/papers/paper-y1.htm to http://www.bu.edu/jeremymb/papers/paper-y1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified