Talk:Russian Liberation Army

message: Am I the only one who thinks this article is somewhat POV in that it tries to portray the POA as heroic? I can't pinpoint an exact offending sentence, but it reads as an anti-Soviet article. For example, look at the sentence "it was declared that they were traitors.. blah blah... and then hanged." "It was declared"?? This makes it look as if it was an arbitrary decision concerning an heroic unit. But they were working for the Nazis! If that's not being a traitor, then what is? How did Britain and the US treat traitors that sided with the Nazis during WW2? 201.235.51.21 04:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get used to it. The whole encyclopedia is packed with anti-Soviet POV. Everyking 04:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The question really is, whom were they really worrking for? Were they anti-communists? Were they fascists? Apparantly a million "Soviet" people fought against their government as "anti- communist" liberators, Witness the acceptance of the invading Romanian Army in their seizure of Odessa.--Tomtom9041 16:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, Odessa was one of the cities to give the fiercest resistance to the Nazis. And I really don't understand why should the POA not be considered traitors. In all the world, people collaborating with the Axis were called exactly this way - traitors. I'm adding a POV template88.80.130.106 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Given the fact that Soviet soldiers captured in perfectly understandable circumstances were considered traitors by the Stalinist state anyway, why the hell wouldn't a captured Soviet soldier join the Russian Liberation Army??? Betrayal works both ways. See what happened to the captured Soviet soldiers from Auschwitz after their 'liberation' by the Red Army.
Who should consider them traitors? Wikipedia? The article clearly states that the ROA were considered traitors by the Soviets and the Russians today.  I don't see where the ROA is depicted as heroic in the entire article.  And maybe Odessa is not a clear example, but Ukrainians surely did not put up a fierce resistance.  If I don't get a reply in a few days I'm removing the POV. Seektrue 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Defection and treachery are objective terms. For example, noone thinks Judas is a supporter of the lawful Roman authority in Palestine. By the way, there's not a single source cited through the whole article despite all of its brave claims about "fierce resistance to the end" etc. And I would suggest putting a "no cited sources" template such are not provided for a few days. DamianOFF 13:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Those of the Russian emigrees that understood that the Great Patriotic war was not about ideology, and that the fate of Russia was at stake and not just the fate of the Bolshevik regime - those would definately support the RKKA, not ROA or any other Nazi collaborator groups. With respect, Ko Soi IX 10:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I respectfully disagree. Many of us whose families were forced to leave our homeland due to Lenin, Stalin and his lynchmen do not see WW2 as a great patriotic war nor the Red Army as heroes, for us that was between 1917-1921. Only one force fought under the true Russian Flag, and it wasn't the Bolshevik Army. I do not know one person in the Russian Emigre community where I live (in Eastern Australia) who would view the second world war as you have described it. God Save the Tsar 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, those are the ones who didn't understand that the Great Patriotic war was not about ideology and that the fate of Russia was at stake etc. What are you disagreeing with? With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because one disagrees with Ko Soi IX does not mean one does not understand. Conversely, because you do not understand that a Russia under Lenin & Stalin wasn't Holy Russia in any way, shape or form one could ask what are you disagreeing with?? Funny how Stalin never once showed any sign of Russian nationalism before the war, in fact his disgusting regime was virulently internationalist, and then suddenly decided to make this 'the great patriotic war' after he packed his pants when tens of thousands of Russians willingly volunteered for the German armed forces. God Save the Tsar 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ivan Bunin, when asked in 1934, why is he so against bol'shevism, replied "..bol'shevism... morbidly answered this question itself... there was not such a low, lying, evil and despotic regime in human history". Same Ivan Bunin, in 1943: "...Stalin is flying to Persia, and I'm trembling, that, God forbid, something might happen to him as he travels". According to a close person, "the war...scared Bunin; he feared the fate of Russia for decades and even centuries ahead, and this deep fear covered in his mind everything that was still unacceptable to him in the Soviet regime". I hope this illustrates my point. And, just for the record, for me, Russia is my otechestvo, regardless of the form it had over the ages, be it feodal, tsarist, communist or even modern "liberal". Every period had it's heroes, it's martyrs, and it's criminals. Surely, to those, who escaped the wrath of the people fighting for freedom (with predictable results in a country with despotic tradition), they are no more than mere "lynchmen". But it was never that simple. А Бог царя хранил, пока последний царь не отрёкся от престола. With respect, Ko Soi IX 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  No argument here on most of your points, but to me and most descendants of the White emigration the USSR was not a Russian nation, it was an internationalist and brutal regime based on Russian soil. Therefore, I feel that fighting for the ROA was not treason to Russia, as at that time 'Russia' did not exist as a nation state. All in all, its all a personal POV anyway I guess. I am far more sympathetic to the Russiches Schutzkorps (Russian Guard Corps) than the ROA, and will take issue with anyone who labels the Guard Corps traitors.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by God Save the Tsar (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not that idealistic. I'm well aware, that the Holy Russia you speak of was also a tyranical, imperialist state, and that most of it's emperors were slave-owners. Or that the rise of the Soviet Union is associated with tremendous losses of lives. Or that the great conqueror and empire builder Ivan Grozny fried several people on large frying pans, made specifically for this purpose. So? All those ROA, "Russiches" Schutzkorps etc. were enemies to the state, which encompassed the overwhelming majority of the Russians, and as such, enemies to Russia. Of them, those were traitors who were Soviet citizens, especially those who had made a military oath. Just because idealistic ideological opinions on this matter exist among small groups that separated from Russia a long time ago, they should not be presented as anything on par to the facts. If one makes an oath and than breaks it, he's a traitor. Why he's chose to become a traitor is a different story. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Fair enough, then the entire Russian Provisional Government of 1917 were traitors, so were the mutinous Imperial Army forces that forced the Tsar to abdicate as well as the Red Army and the Bolsheviks. BTW it wasn't that far removed from 1923 to 1941. The Schutzkorps was made up primarily of White Army veterans, and never once made any oath to the Soviet State. They simply are not traitors. The fact that you compare the Soviet state (a 20th century institution) to Ivan the Terrible 400 years earlier speaks volumes for the relative morality of Stalin and the Communist government. For all their faults, and I'm not a completely naive monarchist who believes that the Tsarist state was perfect, the later Romanovs were not bloodthirsty tyrants, otherwise Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and co would never have been exiled or imprisoned, simply exterminated. In hindsight, the Tsars damned well should have done it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by God Save the Tsar (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, they all were traitors to Russian Empire. During the civil war, both the reds and the whites were revolutionaries. However, eventually the Empire became the Soviet Union. Those who made a pledge to it, and broke it, were traitors. The "russian" schutzkorps was made up of unfortunate fools who allied with the greatest enemy Russia has ever faced to liberate her. Technically, those fools weren't traitors to the USSR, just enemies, and I never claimed otherwise. I can as easily compare other modern states to ancient regimes - the British starving millions of bengalis - no better than tzars of ancient hydralic empires like egypt or babylon, the Americans burning and bombing millions of vietnamese civilians - no better than Chingiz himself, etc. etc. The last three Romanov emperors can be compared to Brezhnev in regards to conditions in which they reigned. Stalin could be compared to Peter the Great. Stalin achieved much more in statecraft, aquired more lands and defeated a considerably stronger adversary with relatively lower losses - yet we have St.Petersburg, but not Stalingrad. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey guys. I think it's pretty safe to say the RLA soldiers were not pro-Nazi at any moment - they were anti-Stalin. Stalin commited genocide on the Russians, too (killing, starving, etc. millions). --HanzoHattori 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What fucking genocide 188.242.189.143 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Heroes/traitors

message: Mr. Borowitz, 
The Wikipedia is equally not a place for your brand of censorship, nor propaganda via censorship where you remove an entire section you are not pleased with. This is not in the spirit of the Wikipedia. 
In addition to the statistic I already provided, it is an indesputable fact that there are such people in Russia's academic community who view the ROA as a patriotic movement - for example, Professor Kirill Alexandrov of St. Petersburg University who has published three books on the subject of the ROA and was featured in three historical documentary films aired on Russian television. Another example, a well known dissident, Valery Senderov, has written repeated articles in support of the ROA - and he cannot be classified by any means as a fascist, having criticised the Soviet government for antisemitism and writing frequent articles against right wing extremism. 
The Posev publishing house continues to publish over a dozen books on the Russian liberation movement, and Posev is hardly classifiable as a "fascist" publishing house. 
Stray away from your stereotyping and keep in mind that I am also a Russian, have lived in Russia, and have had family that fought in the Red Army during WWII. Russia is my country as much as it is yours. Извольте вести себя прилично!
Tgrain 04:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are practicing censorship 

message: Tgrain, I'm glad to see that you modified your article including the fact that the majority of Russians still consider Vlasov a traitor. I think that with the edits you have done this paragraph is acceptable and that you understood that the previous version was unbalanced and partisan. I think you have done a good job in making the article more neutral and i thank you for taking into account what I was saying ( that it is also what the majority of Russians think ) instead of making an unproductive edit war. I'll then add a pair of things on "detractors". My regards! 
(Henryborowitz 12:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, I just helped you to make the article more balanced and truthful

message: Mr. Borowitz,
Thank you for your "praise", I did indeed strive to paint a larger picture than before. Unfortunately there are no daily polls conducted about the Vlasov movement so it is difficult to properly prove that the majority of Russians think of Vlasov this way or that way. It is certainly not a unanimous or near unanimous opinion as you previously insisted, that is beyond a doubt. This cannot be compared to "Neo Nazi-ism". 
I maintain that your attitude of removing an entire section was wrong and disrespectful to the way the Wikipedia is supposed to operate. I would have sooner come to meet you halfway if you had decided to modify that section instead of deleting it entirely, and engauged in a more respectful two way dialog.
Tgrain 16:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That is not what I call "help" 

message: Who? From the context, an important Vlasov deputy. In this article (all of Wikipedia?) this guy even has no name. --HanzoHattori 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Bunyachenko? 

message: Some also volunteered in order to flee Nazi POW camps, notorious for starving the Soviet prisoners to death (Stalin refused to sign the Red Cross agreement, believing that all soldiers must commit suicide before surrender).
What purpouse does the later part of that sentence serve? Stalin's stance on this issue is totally irellevant, it is well documented that the conditions in these POW camps constituted a warcrime by Germany. The Stalin comment seems to serve a single purpouse, to put the blame for these conditions on the Soviet Union and detract from the NAZI crimes. I therefore propose deleting the (Stalin refused to sign the Red Cross agreement, believing that all soldiers must commit suicide before surrender) sentence. That information is already covered at a later point of the article.--Caranorn 12:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, Stalin chose to ignore the Geneva Convention regarding POW's. If this is true, then he contributed directly to the miserable conditions that the Nazis created for (specifically) Russian prisoners of war.
--User:Kh123\Kh123; January 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kh123 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a simple case of delegation of responsibility, blaming Stalin for Nazi crimes. Nazi Germany was a signatory of Geneva Convention regarding POW's, hence they were bound by it to treat the prisoners they took a certain way, regardless of whether the prisoners were from a state who signed the convention, or from a state that didn't. Since the nazis fought a war of extermination in the East, the nazi leadership chose not to fullfil this responsibility. USSR, on the other hand, not being a signatory, had no such obligations (if I remember correctly, one of the reasons this didn't fly for Stalin (or at least the declared reason) was that it required different treatment to officers and soldiers). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Cross agreement? 

message: Did the Vlasov army have a specific flag ? I read somewhere that it used this flag (right), which was similar to the former naval ensign of Russia. Is this true or did they actually use standard german flags ? The blue cross on Vlasov's grave may indicate that this is right, but a source would be nice. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, they used a pre-Revolutionary (and present-days) Russian tricolor, although I am not sure if they were allowed to use it officially.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag ? 

message: I do not think that this rank insignia chart is "improved" at all. My major concerns are that a non-existent category, enlisted, is used, and that there are no translisteration of the Cyrillic letters. The graphic form is in itself, although widely used for Nazi-German ranks (but no others), rather ugly. Creuzbourg (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved rank insignia 

message: Who did the commander of the army report to, in military and/or political realms? What higher formation was it subordinate to? The article gives no clue how the formation fit into German forces.  —Michael Z. 17:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher command 

message: There seems to be the idea that only US,GB,F were Allies but the USSR was as well. 
"they were then forcefully handed over to the Soviets by the Allies"
That was Western Allies handing them over to the Eastern Allies. One needs to bear in mind how many in the administration of the US were Communist sympathizers then as well. So it doesn't come too much as a surprise. 105.0.0.164 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviets were Allies!