Talk:Latvian Legion

message: I write introduction to 16 march day as 16 march links there. When article become big enhough, then spilt in Latvian legions and Legions day. AlV 09:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  16 March 

message: There are two pages concerning this subject: this one and Latvian Legion. Latvian legion apparently is more exact title therfore I think this page should be merged into it---- Xil/talk 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This page should be renamed "Latvian Legion", in the singular. Although there were two divisions, there was only one Legion. Zalktis 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Petri Krohn, in your last edit, you changed the phrase "Latvian Legion" in the introductory paragraph back to plural. Why? As I explained in my suggestion for a rename above, there was only one Legion, which, on paper least, united all ethnic Latvian units subordinated to the SS/Police/Waffen-SS from 1943 onwards. Compare the consistent use of the singular in German (de:Truppenfahne (Waffen-SS)#Die Lettische Legion), Russian (ru:Латышский добровольческий легион СС), and Latvian (lv:Latviešu leģions). The current naming of the article stems from a merging operation on 12 May 2007, when this title was mistakenly given precedence over the more correct singular version. Zalktis 11:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why plural? 

message: #A user who is not a native speaker of English mistakenly created a page entitled Latvian Legions in parallel to the existing page Latvian Legion. To the uninitiated, this present title suggests a plural form in English, i.e. that there were multiple Legions. It is my suspicion, however, that this usage derives from the fact that "leģions" (legion) has a final 's' (masculine nominative singular) in Latvian. (Cf. lv:Latviešu leģions)
#Xil noted the existence of parallel articles, and correctly suggested that this one be merged into Latvian Legion (see above).
#When Alex Bakharev performed the merge, however, the correct version, Latvian Legion, was mistakenly merged into this article instead.
#As long as the current (factually inaccurate and misleading) article name persists, other users (e.g. Petri Krohn, Philaweb) will continue to unwittingly undo edits that try to remove the usage of the plural.
— Zalktis 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move (was: Rename) 

message: In some sources there is information about ephemerical third Latvian division even sometimes with number 36 (but it's number of Dirlewanger division).--Greutungen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen (talk • contribs) 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd division 

message: A user on Latvian Wikipedia just rised a question if introduction on Latvian Wikipedia (For those who speak Latvian - Latvijas teritoriju okupējušā Trešā reiha bruņoto struktūru - ieroču SS un policijas - sastāvā esošo latviešu militāro formējumu kopums Otrā pasaules kara laikā) is correct compared to introduction on English and Russian Wikipedias (apperently these ar simmilar, the English one is - The Latvian Legion was a Waffen-SS unit consisting primarily of ethnic Latvians). This makes me ask if English Wikipedia is correct - the title as noted before should be singular, but dose this mean that the Legion was a single unit ? ~~Xil * 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the LL was actually a bringing-together of new and pre-existing Latvian Waffen-SS and police (Schutzmannschaften) units under one organisational structure, it would be more accurate and precise to say: The Latvian Legion was a formation of the Waffen-SS consisting primarily of ethnic Latvians. Cf Formation (military). If this change is introduced, however, it may be necessary to change the section heading "Formation" to "Founding", "Creation" or suchlike, in order to avoid some confusion. —Zalktis (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: This is a propaganda piece, guys. I`d rather you rewrite it yourself, then me, because that will certainly start a revert war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.58.63 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A propaganda piece 

message: Russian language wikipedia has a lot of information, and here for some reason is just 'one historians say this, other say that'. Yurivict (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Crimes section should be expanded with crimes committed on the territory of Belarus and Poland 

message: "This was despite numerous members of the legion being fiercely loyal to Hitler and expressing their anti-Semitic feelings quite openly after the war." Can we please find a WP:RS for this statement? I seem to recall a statement like this in a Web of Hate by Warren Kinsella, but don't have the book close at hand any more. One could also check Christopher Simpson's Blowback. David Cesarani's Justice Delayed is also a good bet, but I don't think he goes so far as to says that Latvians were openly Hilterites after the war. At the very least, one could probably find something in the archives of The Guardian. Since Russia Today has an axe to grind with the Baltics over interpretations of history, I personally would avoid using them as a source in this case, except, perhaps to reflect the interpretations prevalent in the Russian media. Note that Soviet-era publications such as Daugavas Vanagi — Who Are They? should not be treated as WP:RS, since time and again, when Western prosecutors tried to use them in trial as evidence, the numerous factual imprecisions they contain actually made it harder to convict alleged Latvian war criminals. Anyhow, if no good source if provided for this potentially controversial statement (which does not even specify who, only "numerous members"), then I suggest the statement be removed in the near future. As we all know, the onus is on the person adding information to provide proper sources. —Zalktis (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, see also the section below. - Altenmann >t 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism and enthusiasm for Hitler 

message: For a topic with a good deal of controversy it is rather poorly referenced. All opinions, i.e., evaluations of the Legion (were they good or bad, liked Hitler or hated Soviets, etc.) must be clearly attributed to the sources which presented these opinions in argumented way. For example, a Russian newspaper which just says that Legioners were bad without citing any facts in support will not be a valid source regardless the reputation of the author.  - Altenmann >t 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly referenced 

message: Once again, the Wikipedian hive-mind proves that it's far more comfortable with Nazism than communism. Every article about left-wing military forces on this site is accompanied by screeching, hysterical denunciations of its atrocities (real or imagined). The genuflecting to and special pleading for these genocidal Fascist filth is sickening. DublinDilettante (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And how it connects to this article? Latvian Legionnaires were not Fascists. Dukurs (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewash 

message: I tracked down Silgailis' English translation of the oath:
: "I swear by God this holy oath that in the struggle against Bolshevism I will give the Commander in Chief of the German Armed Forces, Adolf Hitler, absolute obedience and as a brave soldier I will always be ready to lay down my life for this oath.", that of the German
: "Ich schwöre by Gott diesen heiligen Eid, dass im Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus dem Obersten Befehlshaber der deutschen Wehrmacht, Adolf HItler, unbedingen Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will jederzeit fuer diesen Eid mein Leben einzustetzen."
Hopefully that concludes the discussion here and elsewhere. I've also read some accounts that "Adolf Hitler" was dropped in 1944 owing to Latvian protests but I don't have a WP:RS for that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The regular Wehrmacht also pledged obedience, soldiers are required to obey their superior officers, there is nothing extraordinary about that. The point of difference with the German Waffen-SS is that they pledged loyalty to Hitler while the Legion did not, and the fact of the importance of "loyalty" is shown by the German Waffen-SS motto: "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" or "My Honor is Loyalty". --Nug (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oath 

message: Is this British politician so important that his views about Latvian Legion Day should be here? Dukurs (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just another politician indulging the patent lie that the Latvian Legion were Nazis. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he was not saying so, but I agree that a politician is not an expert on the subject of history, per WP:RS. -No.Altenmann >t 06:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard's Howitt's views 

message: The "Latvian Self Administration" was not a country, a government, nor autonomous, nor "self-" in any way. I've updated the country to be 
Reichskommissariat Ostland (Nazi-occupied and administered Latvia). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country 

message: Many paragraphs are uncited. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refimprove tag 

message: Statament that the Legion members were aware of the criminal character of the SS is unlikely. Not to mention that no involvement in the war crimes are proven. Dukurs (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  *StatEment. Criminalization of Waffen-SS was done by Allied show trials. A dubious source. War Crimes? Those that make the allegation must give convincing proof. Must be better than show trials or Soviet propaganda. --105.9.155.39 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal character 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latvian Legion. 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/20090113204945/http://www.un.int/russia/other/latv1941.htm to http://www.un.int/russia/other/latv1941.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) 04:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Latvian Legion. 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/20110617114443/http://vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/zveereeja.htm to http://vip.latnet.lv/lpra/zveereeja.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330115503/http://www.occupationmuseum.lv/gallery/notice/notice.html to http://www.occupationmuseum.lv/gallery/notice/notice.html
*Added  tag to http://www.occupationmuseum.lv/images/Kartes/Karte_1-48/index.php?sfpg=KjMzLmpwZyoqaW1hZ2UqKjRjNjM0OWYwOWRiNWYzNzg3NWJhOWRjZjk3ZTU1N2Jm
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) 00:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've undone this edit: . It's inappropriate to accuse editors of "sheer vandalism" (via e/s). No other rationale for the edit has been provided. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: you also reverted this data: entered without a source  - cite it please with a quote, page # author, etc.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I've fixed it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.GizzyCatBella🍁 21:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

text: My reversion was not aimed at that those particular edits. I was referring to the edits by  which as far as I can tell consisted only in removing all the historical links that had been appended to the article, deleting the background on the battle which was being commemorated, deleting the regimental flags from the infobox, changing the sentence "which were formed several years earlier for security duties" to the ungrammatical "which were formed starting in 1941 earlier for security duties", claiming to "reduce unsourced material" while deleting a source on the dubious ground that he considered it "dubious" and being happy to leave in plenty of other unsourced material, while not providing any sources of his own, all for no discernible reason other than to wreck the article. So, yes, considering your edits were unsourced, inadequately explained, purely destructive and added nothing to the article nor improved it in any way, I don't see how they could be construed as anything other than vandalism.St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can observe it was not vandalism. Accusing somebody of vandalism is rather a heavy deal here. If you don't agree with their edits, please discuss the issue here and if a compromise is reached, rebuild the material you think was important. Thank you for your comment.GizzyCatBella🍁 10:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2020 edis 

message: I suggest Kazyrytski is not a reliable source. He cites tainted Russian archives as well as Dyukov's propagandistic pro-Soviet tome--recall, he maintains that based on "archives", deportees were resettled via coach trains, complete with doctors and nurses to look after passenger welfare, when, in fact, deportees were packed in cattle cars. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazyrytski 

message: The article misinterpreted Hiden as indicating Arajs Kommando members were joined to the Latvian Legion when it was initially formed. This is not true. Also, Germans were already conscripting Latvians in early 1942 for police battalion duty on the Eastern Front. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation 

message: DOES NOT meet this standard, by a mile-
Article policies
Neutral point of view  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:ADDC:1C00:409:B786:CFD9:16CE (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  absurd whitewash 

message: If XXXXIII Corps's Wiki article did exist, why no one even add it's link to it when mentioned the corps? So i added its link. Minhdead2205 (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  XXXXIII Army Corps 

message: This article barely mentions the war crimes they committed as apart of the waffen SS on the eastern front. I feel like a translation other language wikis would help with that. Death editor (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think this article is Whitewashing their war crimes and should be at least use the sources that the russian wiki uses. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewash