![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This right here seems like a contridiction -
"he Germans blamed it on three suspected Communists who had infiltrated the division, and downplayed the whole affair, stating that only some 14 soldiers participated in it. The captured mutineers were subsequently executed by the Germans.
Nevertheless, the 13th was the only SS division that ever had a mutiny, and this was the first armed revolt against the Germans within the main Nazi system. A few of the mutineers escaped and helped form the French resistance in the area."
So which was it? Executed or defected? Someone else know?
TheKarasu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.161.37.195 ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 November 2005.
Hello. I've been trying to find out, but no luck yet. User:invisibleplanet, Thu 13th July 2006, 16:39
Hi, User:Asim Led and User:Nikola Smolenski seem to be engaging in a revert war as to whether to label the soldiers Muslim or Bosniak, and their language Bosnian or Croatian. Please try and discuss this matter on the talk page in order to achieve a consensus. A suggestion might be to take this case to the mediation cabal before it becomes necessary to protect the page. - FrancisTyers 15:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the attempted explanation. I have a possible suggestion...
These seem to be the areas in dispute (from the edit war). If we constructively add them together, we can get something like this:
What are your thoughts? Feel free to play around, its just an idea. - FrancisTyers 17:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There are contradictory statements in the Service section: it seems that an anonymous user tried to downplay the significance of the alleged atrocities committed by this division. I see that there were other disputes about this issue and others and I'm not really informed of the situation so I don't think that just reverting the edits would be the best solution, I hope that someone more informed can review that section and the rest of the page. By the way, these considerations are valid for almost all of the "Divisions of the Waffen-SS" pages, it is a sensitive argument and a general clean-up is auspicable. GhePeU 10:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Most important would be the addition after the first sentence: "The SS was a criminal entity [1]; the Handschar was was part of that criminal entity." If none has an objection, this will be put in. CharlesHenryLeaFan ( talk) 03:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that is a very neutral POV by starting off stating that "The SS was a criminal entity." It definitely caught my eye. The article on the SS in general does not say this either so I'm not sure if a unit that was composed of SS should be defined as that. 108.85.210.238 ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry this is me. Thought I was logged in. Cartras ( talk) 22:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The SS definitely was a criminal entity. We shall begin the debate on this issue at once. I shall quote paragraphs in favor of the notion "The SS was a criminal entity." You shall then refute those twenty with your own, and so on and so forth until a reasonable conclusion is reached. My quoted paragraphs will come from the Nuremburg trials. You may choose yours as you wish. Below is the first argument on my part:
19 Dec. 45
Afternoon Session
MAJOR WARREN F. FARR (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the next organization to be dealt with is the SS. The document books in this case are lettered "Z." For convenience in handling the book because of the number of documents, we have divided them into two volumes. I shall in referring to a document number refer to the volume in which that document appears.
About a week or 10 days ago there appeared in a newspaper circulated in Nuremberg, an account of a visit by that paper's correspondent to a camp in which SS prisoners of war were confined. The thing which particularly struck the correspondent was the one question asked by the SS prisoners. Why are we charged as war criminals? What have we done except our normal duty?
The evidence now to be presented to the Tribunal will, we expect, answer that question. It will show that just as the Nazi Party was the very heart-the core-of the conspiracy, so the SS was the very essence of Nazism. For the SS was the elite group of the Party, composed of the most thorough-going adherents of the Nazi cause, pledged to blind devotion to Nazi principles, and prepared to carry them out without any question and-at any cost-a group in which every ordinary value has been so subverted that its Members can ask, "What is there unlawful about the things we have done?"
During the past weeks the Tribunal has heard evidence of the conspirators' criminal program for aggressive war, for concentration camps, for the extermination of the Jews, for enslavement of foreign labor and illegal use of prisoners of war, for deportation and Germanization of inhabitants of conquered territories. Through all this evidence the name of the SS ran like a thread. Again and again that organization and its components were referred to. It is my purpose to show why it performed a responsible role in every one of these criminal activities, why it was-and, indeed, had to be-a criminal organization;
The creation and development of such an organization was, indeed, essential for the execution of the conspirators' plans. Their sweeping program and the measures they were prepared to use, and did use, could be fully accomplished neither through the machinery of the Government nor of the Party. Things had to be done for which no agency of Government and no political party, even the Nazi Party, would openly take full responsibility. A specialized type of apparatus was needed, an apparatus which was to some extent connected with the Government and given official support but which, at the same time, could maintain a quasi-independent
161
19 Dec. 45
status, so that all its acts could be attributed neither to the Government nor to the Party as a whole. The SS was that apparatus.
Like the SA, it was one of the seven components or formations of the Nazi Party referred to in the "Decree on the Enforcement of the Law for Securing the Unity of Party and State" of 29 March 1935, published in the Reichsgesetzblatt for that year, Part I, Page 503. That decree will found in our Document 1725-PS. I shall not read it. I assume that the Court will take judicial notice of it. The status of the SS, however, was above that of the other formations. As the plans of the conspirators progressed, it acquired new functions, new responsibilities, and an increasingly more important place in the regime. It developed during the course of the conspiracy into a highly complex machine, the most powerful in the Nazi State, spreading its tentacles into every field of Nazi activity.
The evidence which I shall present will be directed, first, towards showing very briefly the origin and early development of the SS; second, how it was organized, that is, its structure and its component parts; third, the basic principles governing the selection of its members and the obligations they undertook; and finally, its aims and the means used to accomplish them, the manner in which it carried out the purposes of the conspirators, and thus is a responsible participant in the crimes alleged in the Indictment.
The history, organization, and publicly announced functions of the SS are not controversial matters. They are not matters 'to be learned only from secret files and captured documents. They were recounted in many publications circulated widely throughout Germany and the world, official books of the Nazi Party itself and books, pamphlets, and speeches by SS and State officials published with SS and Party approval. Throughout the presentation of the case I shall frequently refer to five or six such publications, translations of which-in whole or in part-appear in the document books. Although I shall quote portions of them, I shall not attempt to read them all in full, since I assume that the contents of such authoritative publications may be judicially noticed by the Tribunal.
Now to take up the origin of the SS. The first aim of the conspirators-as the evidence already presented to the Court has shown- was to gain a foothold in politically hostile territory, to acquire mastery of the streets, and to combat any and all opponents with force. For that purpose they needed their own private, personal police organization. Evidence has just been introduced in the case against the SA, showing how that organization was created to fill such a role. But the SA was outlawed in 1923. When Nazi Party activity was again resumed in 1925, the SA remained outlawed. To fill its place and to play the part of Hitler's own personal police, small mobile groups known as protective squadrons (Schutzstaffeln) were created. This was the origin of the SS in 1925. With the reinstatement of the SA in 1926, the SS for the next few years ceased to play a major role. But it continued to exist as an organization within the SA, under its own leader, however, the Reichsfuehrer SS. This early history of the SS is related in two of the authoritative publications to which I have referred: The first is a book by SS Standartenfuehrer Gunter d'Alquen, entitled Die SS. This book, a pamphlet of some 30 pages, is an authoritative account of the history, mission, and organization of the SS, published in 1939. As indicated on its frontispiece, it was written at the direction of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler. Its author, SS Standartenfuehrer Gunter d'Alquen was the editor of the official SS publication Das Schwarze Korps. This book is our Document Number 2284-PS. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-438. The passage to which I refer will be found on Pages 6 and 7 of the original and on Page 1 of the translation.
I shall not now read that passage.
The second publication is an article by Himmler entitled, "Organization and Obligations of the SS and the Police." It was published in 1937 in a booklet containing a series of speeches or essays by important officials of the Party and the State-known as National Political Course for the Armed Forces from 15 to 23 January 1937. The article by Himmler, to which I refer, appears on Pages 137-161 of that pamphlet. Large extracts from it make up our Document Number 1992(a)-PS. I offer the essay by Himmler as Exhibit Number USA-439. The passage to which I referred appears on Page 137 of the original and Page 1 of the translation, our Document 1992(a)-PS. I shall have occasion to quote from both these publications, but with respect to this matter of history, I assume that these references to the pertinent passages in them are enough.
As early as 1929 the conspirators recognized that their plans required an organization in which the main principles of the Nazi system, specifically the racial principles, would not only be jealously guarded but would be carried to such extreme as to inspire or intimidate the rest of the population-an organization in which, also, there would be assured complete freedom on the part of the leaders and blind obedience on the part of the members. The SS was built up to meet this need. I quote from D'Alquen's book, Die SS, at Page 7; this passage appears in our Document Number 2284-PS at Page 4 of the translation, Paragraph 4:
"On the 6th of January 1929 Adolf Hitler appointed his tested comrade of long standing, Heinrich Himmler, as Reichsfuehrer SS. Heinrich Himmler assumed charge therewith of the entire Schutzstaffel totalling at that time 280 men with the express and particular order of the Fuehrer to form this organization into an elite troop of the Party, a troop dependable in every circumstance.
"With this day the real history of the SS begins as it stands before us today in all its deeper essential features, firmly anchored in the National Socialist movement. For the SS and its Reichsfuehrer, Heinrich Himmler, its first SS man, have both become inseparable in the course of these battle-filled years."
Carrying out Hitler's directive, Himmler proceeded to build up out of this small force of men an elite organization-to use D'Alquen's words-composed of "the best physically . . . the most dependable, and the most faithful . . . men" in the Nazi movement. I read another passage from D'Alquen at Page 12 of the original, Page 6 of the translation, Paragraph 5:
"When the day of seizure of power had finally come, there were 52,000 SS men, who in this spirit bore the revolution in the van, marched into the new state which they began helping to form everywhere, in their stations and positions, in profession and in service, and in all their essential tasks."
The conspirators now had the machinery of government in their hands. The initial function of the SS-that of acting as private army and personal police force-was thus completed. But its mission had in fact really just begun. That mission is described in the Organization Book of the NSDAP for 1943. The pages from that book dealing with the SS-Pages 417 to 428-are translated in our Document Number 2640-PS. The organization's book has already been offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-323. The passage to which I refer appears on Page 417 of the original and on Page 1, Paragraph 2, of the translation:
"Missions. The original and most eminent duty of the SS is to serve as the protectors of the Fuehrer. By decree of the Fuehrer the sphere of duties has been enlarged to include the internal security of the Reich."
This new mission-protecting the internal security of the regime- was somewhat more colorfully defined by Himmler in his pamphlet The SS as an Anti-Bolshevist Fighting Organization, published in 1936. It is our Document Number 1851-PS. I offer this document in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-440. The definition to which I refer appears in the original at the bottom of Page 29 of the original, on the third page of the translation, middle of the paragraph:
"We shall unremittingly fulfill our task, the guaranty of the security of Germany from the interior, just as the Wehrmacht guarantees the safety of the honor, the greatness, and the peace of the Reich from the exterior. We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish Bolshevistic revolution of sub-humans be able to be kindled either from within or through emissaries from without. Without pity we shall be a merciless sword of justice for all those forces whose existence and activity we know, on the day of the slightest attempt, may it be today, may it be in decades or may it be in centuries."
____________
The Grand Mufti wanted not only to remove the Jewish Bolsheviks, but to kill every Jew in the Middle East. It is your responsibility to refute the above. After you respond, I'll add another argument. CharlesHenryLeaFan ( talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've re-jigged the article (no actual deletions made). The article still doesn't read as well as I'd like, and citations have still not been found for most claims, although I've tried to back any claims up that I could, even if I didn't make them. At any rate, I hope that this is the beginning of a better article.
I feel that some parts still need expanding out with more background/references, so I haven't touched the articles' expansion or NPOV flags.
Please feel free to discuss attempts and mistakes, since I'm a bit new to editing. User:invisibleplanet, Thu 13th July 2006, 16:39 & 18:39
I've finished for now, replaced/rewrote the intro, which I had accidently removed! (I watch myself too - but please say if you notice such a ridiculous mistake in the future!). The links in the intro do need improving, I think, but that's enough for now. Sorry about the sandbox effect (is that right?) I re-discovered the preview button. Apologies. User:invisibleplanet Thu 21:16
Battalions: where did that information come from, since there does't appear to be a reference cited. Invisibleplanet 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Believe comes from Lepre's book.
Should a new section 'Role in Serbian persecution' be added? Invisibleplanet 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) I've added a new section 'Atrocities against civilians' with sub-sections 'Role in persecution of Jews' and 'Role in persecution of Muslim and Serbian partisans'. Invisibleplanet 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Invisibleplanet 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've finished tinkering about with the contents section for now, and hope that you'll all forgive my ineptness, and any POV bias that's been left in, or which I've added, even though I've tried to be neutral. Invisibleplanet 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
More re-reading and re-ordering. Some rephrasing. Invisibleplanet 13:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Removed expansion tag. Invisibleplanet 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There are still a large number of uncited claims made about the Handschar division. Invisibleplanet 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I do believe that the proper name is SS-Obergruppenführer Artur Phelps -- Jinxs 19:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It turns out that this unit under the command of Himmler did not committed crimes in general, and that would be the same as the Nazis were the good guys in World War 2. Vladimir Dedijer is well-known historian of that time,he record their crimes The Massacre at Koritska Gorge, Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1941 by Vladimir Dedijer-- Boksi ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is why sources like your web page should never be used: "Along with with the Ustashe, the SS Handschar divsion took part in the massacre in the Koritska Jama Gorge in Herzegovina during May/June 1941." However, the SS Handschar did not exist until late in 1943. Zero talk 14:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
In 1941 Bosnian Muslim volunteered into a Nazi unit after a call by their Imam who, as a historian says, knew no bounds of hatred for Jews and Serbs. -- Boksi ( talk) 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The following text is in the "Recruitment" section of this article. Unfortunately, the picture seems to have been deleted, but the caption of the picture still exists. I feel this should be removed from the article since it has an invalid picture source and does not contribute to the article in anyway, unless the picture can be reasonably explained who and where the picture came from. Adamdaley ( talk) 10:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Hanjar div Himmler Sauberzw.jpg SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler and SS Brigadefuhrer Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig during an inspection of Waffen SS Division Handschar (Handzar) aka. Scimitar, Sarajevo, 1943. This file has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.
Chetniks were Nazi collaborators. Why not include them in the article too? General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) http://www.znaci.net/00001/22.htm . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnik collaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Branko Latas organized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) http://www.znaci.net/00001/114.htm (or for individual documents, you can look bottom of theis page http://www.znaci.net/ ). For non-Serbian speaking researchers, you may use Google translate. Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 04:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
What do the chetniks have to do with this article? There is already an article on wiki about the chetniks so mentioning them is very pointless. It would be like mentioning that Jamaica is a democratic county in the U.S.A article, simply because the USA is a democracy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.165.129 ( talk) 23:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This section is overly long and there is almost nothing of note in it. This is particularly puzzling when the internationally renowned military historian, John Keegan states in 'The Waffen SS' (1970) pp. 104-105 that the 13th SS 'behaved unsatisfactorily wherever it was sent', and 'it steadfastly refused on its return to Yugoslavia to operate outside its own area, where it confined itself chiefly to massacring and pillaging the defenceless Christians.' He also states that 'In late 1944, Himmler ordered its disbandment.', which is also not properly reflected in the article. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 05:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
could someone with more skills please fix whatever is going on with the edits I did on Operation Maibaum? Thanks Peacemaker67 ( talk) 08:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
| Guild of Copy Editors | |||
|
Mostly shorter sentences and reduced duplicative context.
Comments:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wustenfuchs ( talk · contribs) 22:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
There could be few minor improvements...
- It would be better if you would replace the "Dj" with the letter "Đ", as this letter is used in Serbian language. Dj is just a replacement for the "đ" letter, as such letter doesn't exists in the English alphabet.
- Also here, can you please use the SC letters (Š and Ć)?
- It's about the tomb image... the tomb is gone now, it doesn't exist any more. Maybe you should note that ( [1] nekadašnji means former). You can see here the new monument.
- The citation at the end is missing.
- The whole paragraph is without any citation.
- Why the labour service has the quotation marks?
- You should erase the Habsburg word here, it's unnecessary.
We will continue this in the morning.
-- Wusten fuchs 23:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please, use the "ć" letter at the end of his surname.
- In Bosnian language it is "Zeleni kada", the "kadar" word isn't spelled with first capital letter.
- Please, use the "č" letter for Birač and "ć" letter for Rajići.
- Again, the same thing with the "kadar" word.
The country of this division isn't the Third Reich, but the Independent State of Croatia, while the division's allegiance is for Germany. So you need to fix this also. -- Wusten fuchs 11:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Rm pics due to Fair Use Rules Peacemaker67 ( talk) 02:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The best thing is that you remove the images that could have the copyright issues. -- Wusten fuchs 11:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- The NDH didn't consisted of several "banovina", but župas (singular: župa, plural: župe).
- Add the "š" letter in the "Ustasa" word. -- Wusten fuchs 12:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
All Done.
OK, I'll promote the article now. -- Wusten fuchs 14:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The operations sections need specific maps. Moving my comments from FA review:
-- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing {{ Location map NDH (east)}} will be used. :) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This book is used as the sole source for the word "Jewish" in "atrocities committed against Serb and Jewish civilians":
I question this for the following reasons:
In conclusion, a single word in a source devoted to a different topic is not enough. If the claim is true there will be details in specialist sources. Zero talk 03:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar and Banja Luka Ulama (Islamic clerics), who in 1941 forbade them from collaborating with the Ustaše.
This is sourced to Lepre 1997 pp.31-35. I've read it twice, and still cannot find anything warranting such a synthesis, which, given the length of the pagination cited, also looks like WP:OR. Please attend to this, and preemptive apologies if my eyes are at fault. Nishidani ( talk) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't know why the the etymology discussion got lost over time. Handschar is just the German spelling of a Balkan version of Arabic khanjar (as seen from the emblem showing a sword), so this article needs to link to khanjar... AnonMoos ( talk) 00:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The name "handschar" is the German spelling of a Balkan word for a sword or knife, ultimately from Arabic khanjar (خنجر).
This article needs a paragraph on the massacre in Bosut and Sremska Rača in mid March 1944. But, of course, it is a delicate subject, and sources are conflicting. It is mentioned in Davidson's book, and in a number of bhs books, with varying accounts on both course of events and number of victims. Zija Sulejmanpašić in his (by the way biased) book from 2000 admits that Division sources indicate that villages were on the route of combat group "J" from 27th SS Rgt. 1964 census of war losses gives 403 dead for Bosut and 480 for Sremska Rača, but these are numbers for the whole war.-- Gorran ( talk) 12:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I am proposing to change the citation style to shortened footnotes to make it easier for everyone. This is my only FA that still has the old ref tag style, and it is very clunky. Objections? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 03:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67:, this is what the source (Grujić, Periša (1959). S̆esnaesta Vojvod̆anska divizija: borbena dejstva od formiranja do oslobođenja zemlje) says on p. 175: "U borbama na Zajednicama, na Brezovači i za s. Lopare 16-ta divizija je postigla svoj dotada najveći uspeh. Neprijatelju je zadat težak udarac. Samo u toku tri dana borbi imao je oko 400 mrtvih, ranjenih i zarobljenih, a izgubio je i velike količine oružja i ratne spreme. Ukupni gubici naših jedinica iznosili su 58 mrtvih, 198 ranjenih i 29 nestalih. Od oružja smo izgubili 3 puškomitraljeza, 2 automata i 12 pušaka." I.e: 58 dead, 198 wounded, 29 missing. I can not find this data you entered here (200 dead, 557 wounded and 84 missing [2]).-- Gorran ( talk) 09:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The division is a military formation, and it was integrated into German military structure, subordinated to the 5th SS Corps, 9th SS Corps, 68th Corps, etc. It was never in any chain of command under some ISC official. I suggest to remove the claim.-- Gorran ( talk) 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
G'day @ Gorran: The Grujić 1983 citation doesn't point anywhere. Is that the right year, or is there an error between the citation and the year of the 1959 book? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Peacemaker67. This division is composed of Bosnians and Croatians but mainly Bosnians. So why did you reinstate (1st Croatian) to the name ?
Hello,
since we all know who have read the article and know what happened we also know about the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) who were seeking for their semi-independent "Region of Bosnia" why wouldn't we just add in the under the "Allegiance" part "Region of Bosnia" and the flag of the Handschar this would give a better and quicker overview to what most Bosniaks wanted and also those Bosniaks who where in the Handschar.
It would look something like this: (Example):
13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) | |
---|---|
![]() Insignia of 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)
[3] | |
Active | 1943–1945 |
Country |
![]() |
Allegiance |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Branch | Waffen-SS |
Engagements |
I didn't include the whole infobox, i just want to focus on this part. So what do you guys think about this? Remember the Handschar was made and requested to be made also for the protection of Bosniaks so why wouldn't "Bosniaks" be listed in the Allegiance part of the infobox. We know that the region never got their autonomy but this is a very special case.
All comments and opinions are welcome.
Thanks in advance. Hazbulator ( talk) 05:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Would have been a clear B class if it weren't for substantial completely unreferenced content. Which is a shame, because the referencing standard is otherwise fine, and coverage is also very good. Some copyediting is needed, though. Might easily go for GA once these problems are solved. On a side note: Villefranche-de-Rouergue Mutiny probably deserves an article of its own. GregorB ( talk) 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
Last edited at 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There have been a couple of recent edits to the infobox where the piping of Gebirgsjager to Mountain infantry has been removed, and the italics on Waffen have been removed. No edit summary has been provided. Italia2006 please explain the basis for these changes here on the talk page IAW WP:BRD. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
They were not Bosniaks as there were no Bosniak nation at the time. They expressed Croatian nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.243.120 ( talk) 09:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
"In an effort to secure the loyalty of the Bosnian Muslims, Pavelić ordered that a property in Zagreb be converted into a mosque that he named the "Poglavnik's Mosque".[5] Despite Pavelić's assurances of equality with the Croats, many Muslims quickly became dissatisfied with Croatian rule. A Muslim leader reported that not one Muslim occupied an influential post in the administration. Fierce fighting broke out between the Ustaše, Chetniks and Yugoslav Partisans in NDH territory. Some Ustaše militia units became convinced that the Muslims were communist sympathizers, and burned their villages and murdered many civilians.[6] The Chetniks accused the Muslims of taking part in the Ustaše violence against Serbs and perpetrated similar atrocities against the Muslim population. The Muslims received little protection from the Croatian Home Guard, the regular army of the NDH, whom the Germans described as "of minimal combat value"." Who wrote this? Some Serbian apologist? Muslims were members of Croatian home guard same as catholics were. Why every sentence about ustashe and Ante Pavelić has to start with killings of Serbs? Ustashe were created as resistance to Great Serbian hegemony. Chetnics did not kill Catholics and muslims as a revenge but as a plan to create ethnically clean Greater Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.243.120 ( talk) 09:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Džafer Kulenović was one of many prominent Muslims in the NDH, and also served as Vice Governor of the NDH. Džafer Kulenović See Wikipedia entry for Džafer Kulenović
That’s a start, thank you. I’m trying to be historically accurate here, I’m sure that you feel the same way. Although I don’t have a cite at the mom., for Džafer Kulenović being Vice Governor, that is like asking for a cite that George Washington was the first President of the USA. On the flip side you still maintain ‘A Muslim leader reported that not one Muslim occupied an influential post in the administration. Although this was an overstatement, Muslims were underrepresented in government positions, comprising only two of 20 ministerial positions’ without citation. Who was this Muslim leader who said this? A town dog catcher? Or maybe the ‘leader’ was a local imam? To make a sweeping statement like that, when clearly Džafer Kulenović was a prominent Muslim, exposes the statement as slander or inaccuracy at best. Muslims were an integral part of the NDH, and there was more support for the NDH, per capita, on the territory of today’s Bosnia and Hercegovina, than in any part of the NDH, uncited up to this point, I get it.
It is pretty well common knowledge that Mr. Kulenović was VP, and a Muslim. And he wasn’t the only Muslim leader by far. Furthermore, the Bleiburg memorial stone dedicated to the masssacred Croatian civilians, inscribed since 1953, there is a Muslim crescent side by side with a cross. It is reads ‘to all Croat victims’ Surely you can see that the Muslims were considered to be an integral part of the NDH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel77019 ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't yet have a mature opinion on Santasa99's edits, except on one point. The "Black Book of Bosnia" should not be used as a source for this article. The part cited is not even by the editor Mousavizadeh, here incorrectly cited as author. Actually it is from an article of Aleksa Djilas, the son of Bosnian communist activist Milovan Djilas, which has only one short paragraph on the Handschar. We shouldn't be using sources that mention the topic only in passing when we have several sources that contain in-depth studies. Zero talk 01:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Those few sentences - two, three? - you are steadfastly want to keep are product of Raphael Israeli's imagination (as well as Mousavizadeh's), the author whose cited book is mishmash of established facts and his own imagined ones, from where he draws his conclusions and establish narrative.
Meanwhile, his legitimacy is of a controversial sort, to put it mildly, and here's why: the guy takes a quite an interesting and firm stance on Islam and Muslims, and particularly on Arabs and Palestinians (which he in various ways tries to link to Bosnians and their own tragic history, to further his own shaky arguments and narrative, mainly concerning Israel), which is why his books, and in this case this book and its parts concerning Bosnia and its Muslims (e.g. after establishing Mufti's ultimate influence over Bosnian Muslim agendas and life affairs in chapter on him in Bosnia, Israeli immediately turns to elaborate on nature of Islam), are filled with characteristic claims about Islam and Muslims - after all, guy extremely strongly suggest that all Muslims are anti-Semites and potential terrorists, which he supports with his perceived nature of that religion, which he literally describes as being conceived as inherently ant-Semitic.
This is a kind of source material which you are trying to keep (at all costs?) as reference for the following sentence (taken out of his book, reformulated I believe):
“The Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar and Banja Luka Ulama (Islamic clerics), who in 1941 forbade them from collaborating with the Ustaše”
- first, "declarations" are extremely important historical issue, and there were nine of these documents (namely Sarajevo, Mostar, Banja Luka, Tuzla, Bjeljina, along with Prijedor, Bihać, Jajce and Travnik - all main Islamic parishes(?)(territorial units in Islam)) if not more important than "Unit" certainly not less, but we don't have opportunity to read about it more, instead we have article of a "Good" class on military unit most successful and most famous for extermination of, well, Nazi officers and soldiers in sleepy French village.
Well, as far as Israeli is concerned, he must be a mind-reader, and one that reads minds through space and time, at that. Besides, here's the author's prejudice-based attitude in full display:
"Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations"
- however, let's brush aside, for the moment, all of his characteristic moral and intellectual shortcomings, as I perceive them, and let's brush aside the fact that he himself can't provide reference to his readers for such horridly stereotypical, suggestive generalization (unworthy and uncharacteristic of serious and unbiased historian), and practically nothing short of Islamophobic, expression, and let's ask obvious questions: which "the Muslims", who "the Muslims", how many, why would Mufti do that, most importantly how he knows that Mufti "successfully convinced" these "the Muslims" and what makes Israeli himself so convinced, what is the result, what are the consequences, and so on, and so forth...
- maybe we are going to, somehow, connect the dots, then following this suggestive narrative of his, in the back of our minds, conclude that, after all, this perfectly fit Israeli's own proposition: must be all the Muslims are ant-Semitic, genocidal, bunch, and of course potential terrorists?
Another author, Mousavizadeh, is referenced for the next two sentence, which goes ae follows:
“The Germans emphasised that al-Husayni had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo in order to bless and inspect the division. - no, he flew in to help in failed conscription ! - During his visit to Bosnia, al-Husayni also convinced some important Muslim leaders that the formation of the division was in the interests of Islam.”
- another mind-reader, reading peoples minds across the time-space precipice, not one, ever, left any (written) clue from which such conclusion could be drawn, after all he is Muslim cleric, there is no doubt that he said such thing on numerous occasions, but we don’t know that he “convinced” any of Bosnian Muslims (to anything, anyway), not to mention that there were numerous "!important Muslims“ outside the group he met with, with existence of number of different groups of Muslims divided on political and ideological basis. This makes these two sentences redundant, if not completely inaccurate, or at least in conflict with encyclopedic norms.
My short edit is within historical parameters concerning the events at hand, as I used historian Marko Attila Hoare as my source, since he is really an expert on Bosnia's modern history, and Bosnia in WWII in particular.
Anyway, lot of text to discuss a couple of lines - losing interest - can't believe this is what it takes to make constructive contrib.--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
16:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, and on past experience, I’ll take your assertions with a grain of saltyou wrote just last of probably more than thousand snide comments you wrote against me on various article talkpages. I can not see any other reason for your behavior except to make me feel threatened or intimidated, with the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, to undermine, frighten, or discourage me from editing wikipedia. If you again write snide comments against me I might consider reporting you. Please understand this as a warning.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Since the alleged "Knight's Cross" awards to the Division's members is disputed and "cannot be verified at the German National Archive" - why is that retained on this page? It adds no value to the article and could just be nothing more than glorification propaganda from former Nazis. My recommendation is that this entire section be removed. Any objections and/or justifications otherwise? Seems like fanboy stuff to me.-- Obenritter ( talk) 18:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! I have read about the matter concerning November 1942 Memorandum referenced in the final sentence of the "Denunciations and request for protection" section. While the source offered in this article clearly supports the claim of requested annexation, Hoare claims on pp. 51-53 of the 2013 book referenced in this article that the request was limited to some form of autonomy under some form of German protection (possibly a formal protectorate). Another source - Adnan Jahić, Ideja Autonomije Bosne i Hercegovine p. 158 (reference details here) - seems to support Hoare's claims, cites a number of interpretations (including Lepre, although dismissing him) and indicates that the level of autonomy sought was similar to the one afforded by Yugoslavia to Banovina Croatia in 1939 - although under some form of German protection. Should the final sentence of the mentioned section be modified by adding something like "or grant it some sort of protection and autonomy." or should Lepre be given extra weight, or should something be done differently?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 16:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
"The East Came West", Antonio J. Muñoz, page 272 notes that it was officially disbanded in October 1944, and remnants sent into Battlegroup "Handschar" built around the 6,000 ethnic Germans left, a rather small number of Bosnians being left. Why is this omitted in the article? It was not even a Division anymore by Fall 1944! Instead it is stated as if it was simply "re-organized". Will Tyson for real ( talk) 00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "128. Velikonja 2003, p. 180." to "128. Velikonja 2003, p. 181." (page 181 discusses the annihilation of Jews) On that subject, the above reference discusses the annihilation of Jews, but doesn't indicate that these actions were directly perpetrated by the 13th Waffen Mountain Division. I think a better reference should be found to justify accusing the division of such atrocities. NadavNahari ( talk) 07:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
SS HANDZAR DELETION the entire section is false and pure communist propoganda. There was no Četnik involvement in the mentioned battle between the SS Handzar and German forces on one side, and the Communist Partisans on the other - especially not on the side of the Germans and the SS Handzar. The supposed battalion from Majevica/Romanija (do you realise how large a battalion is?) of Četniks were one of three fighting forces in the area, the SS Handzar and Germans were the second, and the Communist Partisans were the third. There was no joint attack on the Partisans by the Germans/SS Handzar and the Romanija Četniks. All three sides were fighting one another. The Četniks are being falsely represented in this article. Infact, they arent even represented through facts or references. Who were these Četniks? What was the name of the division involved? How many in their battalion? Who was their commander? Nothing is sourced, no evidence or references are given. The section states that 'Četniks' were involved. However, it doesnt state which Četniks and under whose command. Nothing. One sentence claims 'oh yeah the same Četniks that attacked the Partisans with the Germans at the last made-up battle in this article (which also has no evidence of Četnik involvement). And oh yeah btw it was an entire battalion....more than 1000 armed soldiers apparently. But of course we dont know their commanders name, nor the name of the battalion. Keep the section in the article if you like. But be honest and remove any mention of the involvement of an imaginary NAZI-allied 1000 strong battalion of Četniks in the battle. Pure communist propoganda 2405:6E00:2651:B5B4:AFA2:1BB9:2A1B:A812 ( talk) 02:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
This article reads stalinistic. The Cetniks are mentioned more than the SS Divison that the article is supposedly supposed to be about. There is no evidence of SS Handzar and Cetnik cooperation in Bosnia. Infact, such a claim defies all basic common sence and knowledge, and could only be accepted by communist ideologues for propoganda purposes. If the Cetniks are fighting the Communists all over Yugoslavia since 1941, then that doesnt mean that they are suddenly allies of the SS Handzar when the SS Unit and Communists finally start to fight eachother in 1944 (before the mass crossover of former fascists and concentration camp guards from the SS into Partisan units).
If one side is fighting the other in one area, that doesnt mean that if a third side joins the conflict and attacks one of the parties that they are now allies. Keserovic and the Cetniks of the area did not have any dealings with the Muslim fascists. Protecting the local Serb civilian population from the genocide being committed by the Muslim Ustase in Eastern Bosnia was the major reason Cetnik formations were created in the first place. Absolutely disgusting. Lenin would be proud 2405:6E00:2651:B5B4:AFA2:1BB9:2A1B:A812 ( talk) 03:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This right here seems like a contridiction -
"he Germans blamed it on three suspected Communists who had infiltrated the division, and downplayed the whole affair, stating that only some 14 soldiers participated in it. The captured mutineers were subsequently executed by the Germans.
Nevertheless, the 13th was the only SS division that ever had a mutiny, and this was the first armed revolt against the Germans within the main Nazi system. A few of the mutineers escaped and helped form the French resistance in the area."
So which was it? Executed or defected? Someone else know?
TheKarasu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.161.37.195 ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 November 2005.
Hello. I've been trying to find out, but no luck yet. User:invisibleplanet, Thu 13th July 2006, 16:39
Hi, User:Asim Led and User:Nikola Smolenski seem to be engaging in a revert war as to whether to label the soldiers Muslim or Bosniak, and their language Bosnian or Croatian. Please try and discuss this matter on the talk page in order to achieve a consensus. A suggestion might be to take this case to the mediation cabal before it becomes necessary to protect the page. - FrancisTyers 15:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the attempted explanation. I have a possible suggestion...
These seem to be the areas in dispute (from the edit war). If we constructively add them together, we can get something like this:
What are your thoughts? Feel free to play around, its just an idea. - FrancisTyers 17:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There are contradictory statements in the Service section: it seems that an anonymous user tried to downplay the significance of the alleged atrocities committed by this division. I see that there were other disputes about this issue and others and I'm not really informed of the situation so I don't think that just reverting the edits would be the best solution, I hope that someone more informed can review that section and the rest of the page. By the way, these considerations are valid for almost all of the "Divisions of the Waffen-SS" pages, it is a sensitive argument and a general clean-up is auspicable. GhePeU 10:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Most important would be the addition after the first sentence: "The SS was a criminal entity [1]; the Handschar was was part of that criminal entity." If none has an objection, this will be put in. CharlesHenryLeaFan ( talk) 03:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that is a very neutral POV by starting off stating that "The SS was a criminal entity." It definitely caught my eye. The article on the SS in general does not say this either so I'm not sure if a unit that was composed of SS should be defined as that. 108.85.210.238 ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry this is me. Thought I was logged in. Cartras ( talk) 22:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The SS definitely was a criminal entity. We shall begin the debate on this issue at once. I shall quote paragraphs in favor of the notion "The SS was a criminal entity." You shall then refute those twenty with your own, and so on and so forth until a reasonable conclusion is reached. My quoted paragraphs will come from the Nuremburg trials. You may choose yours as you wish. Below is the first argument on my part:
19 Dec. 45
Afternoon Session
MAJOR WARREN F. FARR (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the next organization to be dealt with is the SS. The document books in this case are lettered "Z." For convenience in handling the book because of the number of documents, we have divided them into two volumes. I shall in referring to a document number refer to the volume in which that document appears.
About a week or 10 days ago there appeared in a newspaper circulated in Nuremberg, an account of a visit by that paper's correspondent to a camp in which SS prisoners of war were confined. The thing which particularly struck the correspondent was the one question asked by the SS prisoners. Why are we charged as war criminals? What have we done except our normal duty?
The evidence now to be presented to the Tribunal will, we expect, answer that question. It will show that just as the Nazi Party was the very heart-the core-of the conspiracy, so the SS was the very essence of Nazism. For the SS was the elite group of the Party, composed of the most thorough-going adherents of the Nazi cause, pledged to blind devotion to Nazi principles, and prepared to carry them out without any question and-at any cost-a group in which every ordinary value has been so subverted that its Members can ask, "What is there unlawful about the things we have done?"
During the past weeks the Tribunal has heard evidence of the conspirators' criminal program for aggressive war, for concentration camps, for the extermination of the Jews, for enslavement of foreign labor and illegal use of prisoners of war, for deportation and Germanization of inhabitants of conquered territories. Through all this evidence the name of the SS ran like a thread. Again and again that organization and its components were referred to. It is my purpose to show why it performed a responsible role in every one of these criminal activities, why it was-and, indeed, had to be-a criminal organization;
The creation and development of such an organization was, indeed, essential for the execution of the conspirators' plans. Their sweeping program and the measures they were prepared to use, and did use, could be fully accomplished neither through the machinery of the Government nor of the Party. Things had to be done for which no agency of Government and no political party, even the Nazi Party, would openly take full responsibility. A specialized type of apparatus was needed, an apparatus which was to some extent connected with the Government and given official support but which, at the same time, could maintain a quasi-independent
161
19 Dec. 45
status, so that all its acts could be attributed neither to the Government nor to the Party as a whole. The SS was that apparatus.
Like the SA, it was one of the seven components or formations of the Nazi Party referred to in the "Decree on the Enforcement of the Law for Securing the Unity of Party and State" of 29 March 1935, published in the Reichsgesetzblatt for that year, Part I, Page 503. That decree will found in our Document 1725-PS. I shall not read it. I assume that the Court will take judicial notice of it. The status of the SS, however, was above that of the other formations. As the plans of the conspirators progressed, it acquired new functions, new responsibilities, and an increasingly more important place in the regime. It developed during the course of the conspiracy into a highly complex machine, the most powerful in the Nazi State, spreading its tentacles into every field of Nazi activity.
The evidence which I shall present will be directed, first, towards showing very briefly the origin and early development of the SS; second, how it was organized, that is, its structure and its component parts; third, the basic principles governing the selection of its members and the obligations they undertook; and finally, its aims and the means used to accomplish them, the manner in which it carried out the purposes of the conspirators, and thus is a responsible participant in the crimes alleged in the Indictment.
The history, organization, and publicly announced functions of the SS are not controversial matters. They are not matters 'to be learned only from secret files and captured documents. They were recounted in many publications circulated widely throughout Germany and the world, official books of the Nazi Party itself and books, pamphlets, and speeches by SS and State officials published with SS and Party approval. Throughout the presentation of the case I shall frequently refer to five or six such publications, translations of which-in whole or in part-appear in the document books. Although I shall quote portions of them, I shall not attempt to read them all in full, since I assume that the contents of such authoritative publications may be judicially noticed by the Tribunal.
Now to take up the origin of the SS. The first aim of the conspirators-as the evidence already presented to the Court has shown- was to gain a foothold in politically hostile territory, to acquire mastery of the streets, and to combat any and all opponents with force. For that purpose they needed their own private, personal police organization. Evidence has just been introduced in the case against the SA, showing how that organization was created to fill such a role. But the SA was outlawed in 1923. When Nazi Party activity was again resumed in 1925, the SA remained outlawed. To fill its place and to play the part of Hitler's own personal police, small mobile groups known as protective squadrons (Schutzstaffeln) were created. This was the origin of the SS in 1925. With the reinstatement of the SA in 1926, the SS for the next few years ceased to play a major role. But it continued to exist as an organization within the SA, under its own leader, however, the Reichsfuehrer SS. This early history of the SS is related in two of the authoritative publications to which I have referred: The first is a book by SS Standartenfuehrer Gunter d'Alquen, entitled Die SS. This book, a pamphlet of some 30 pages, is an authoritative account of the history, mission, and organization of the SS, published in 1939. As indicated on its frontispiece, it was written at the direction of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler. Its author, SS Standartenfuehrer Gunter d'Alquen was the editor of the official SS publication Das Schwarze Korps. This book is our Document Number 2284-PS. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-438. The passage to which I refer will be found on Pages 6 and 7 of the original and on Page 1 of the translation.
I shall not now read that passage.
The second publication is an article by Himmler entitled, "Organization and Obligations of the SS and the Police." It was published in 1937 in a booklet containing a series of speeches or essays by important officials of the Party and the State-known as National Political Course for the Armed Forces from 15 to 23 January 1937. The article by Himmler, to which I refer, appears on Pages 137-161 of that pamphlet. Large extracts from it make up our Document Number 1992(a)-PS. I offer the essay by Himmler as Exhibit Number USA-439. The passage to which I referred appears on Page 137 of the original and Page 1 of the translation, our Document 1992(a)-PS. I shall have occasion to quote from both these publications, but with respect to this matter of history, I assume that these references to the pertinent passages in them are enough.
As early as 1929 the conspirators recognized that their plans required an organization in which the main principles of the Nazi system, specifically the racial principles, would not only be jealously guarded but would be carried to such extreme as to inspire or intimidate the rest of the population-an organization in which, also, there would be assured complete freedom on the part of the leaders and blind obedience on the part of the members. The SS was built up to meet this need. I quote from D'Alquen's book, Die SS, at Page 7; this passage appears in our Document Number 2284-PS at Page 4 of the translation, Paragraph 4:
"On the 6th of January 1929 Adolf Hitler appointed his tested comrade of long standing, Heinrich Himmler, as Reichsfuehrer SS. Heinrich Himmler assumed charge therewith of the entire Schutzstaffel totalling at that time 280 men with the express and particular order of the Fuehrer to form this organization into an elite troop of the Party, a troop dependable in every circumstance.
"With this day the real history of the SS begins as it stands before us today in all its deeper essential features, firmly anchored in the National Socialist movement. For the SS and its Reichsfuehrer, Heinrich Himmler, its first SS man, have both become inseparable in the course of these battle-filled years."
Carrying out Hitler's directive, Himmler proceeded to build up out of this small force of men an elite organization-to use D'Alquen's words-composed of "the best physically . . . the most dependable, and the most faithful . . . men" in the Nazi movement. I read another passage from D'Alquen at Page 12 of the original, Page 6 of the translation, Paragraph 5:
"When the day of seizure of power had finally come, there were 52,000 SS men, who in this spirit bore the revolution in the van, marched into the new state which they began helping to form everywhere, in their stations and positions, in profession and in service, and in all their essential tasks."
The conspirators now had the machinery of government in their hands. The initial function of the SS-that of acting as private army and personal police force-was thus completed. But its mission had in fact really just begun. That mission is described in the Organization Book of the NSDAP for 1943. The pages from that book dealing with the SS-Pages 417 to 428-are translated in our Document Number 2640-PS. The organization's book has already been offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-323. The passage to which I refer appears on Page 417 of the original and on Page 1, Paragraph 2, of the translation:
"Missions. The original and most eminent duty of the SS is to serve as the protectors of the Fuehrer. By decree of the Fuehrer the sphere of duties has been enlarged to include the internal security of the Reich."
This new mission-protecting the internal security of the regime- was somewhat more colorfully defined by Himmler in his pamphlet The SS as an Anti-Bolshevist Fighting Organization, published in 1936. It is our Document Number 1851-PS. I offer this document in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-440. The definition to which I refer appears in the original at the bottom of Page 29 of the original, on the third page of the translation, middle of the paragraph:
"We shall unremittingly fulfill our task, the guaranty of the security of Germany from the interior, just as the Wehrmacht guarantees the safety of the honor, the greatness, and the peace of the Reich from the exterior. We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish Bolshevistic revolution of sub-humans be able to be kindled either from within or through emissaries from without. Without pity we shall be a merciless sword of justice for all those forces whose existence and activity we know, on the day of the slightest attempt, may it be today, may it be in decades or may it be in centuries."
____________
The Grand Mufti wanted not only to remove the Jewish Bolsheviks, but to kill every Jew in the Middle East. It is your responsibility to refute the above. After you respond, I'll add another argument. CharlesHenryLeaFan ( talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've re-jigged the article (no actual deletions made). The article still doesn't read as well as I'd like, and citations have still not been found for most claims, although I've tried to back any claims up that I could, even if I didn't make them. At any rate, I hope that this is the beginning of a better article.
I feel that some parts still need expanding out with more background/references, so I haven't touched the articles' expansion or NPOV flags.
Please feel free to discuss attempts and mistakes, since I'm a bit new to editing. User:invisibleplanet, Thu 13th July 2006, 16:39 & 18:39
I've finished for now, replaced/rewrote the intro, which I had accidently removed! (I watch myself too - but please say if you notice such a ridiculous mistake in the future!). The links in the intro do need improving, I think, but that's enough for now. Sorry about the sandbox effect (is that right?) I re-discovered the preview button. Apologies. User:invisibleplanet Thu 21:16
Battalions: where did that information come from, since there does't appear to be a reference cited. Invisibleplanet 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Believe comes from Lepre's book.
Should a new section 'Role in Serbian persecution' be added? Invisibleplanet 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) I've added a new section 'Atrocities against civilians' with sub-sections 'Role in persecution of Jews' and 'Role in persecution of Muslim and Serbian partisans'. Invisibleplanet 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Invisibleplanet 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've finished tinkering about with the contents section for now, and hope that you'll all forgive my ineptness, and any POV bias that's been left in, or which I've added, even though I've tried to be neutral. Invisibleplanet 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
More re-reading and re-ordering. Some rephrasing. Invisibleplanet 13:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Removed expansion tag. Invisibleplanet 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There are still a large number of uncited claims made about the Handschar division. Invisibleplanet 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I do believe that the proper name is SS-Obergruppenführer Artur Phelps -- Jinxs 19:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It turns out that this unit under the command of Himmler did not committed crimes in general, and that would be the same as the Nazis were the good guys in World War 2. Vladimir Dedijer is well-known historian of that time,he record their crimes The Massacre at Koritska Gorge, Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1941 by Vladimir Dedijer-- Boksi ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is why sources like your web page should never be used: "Along with with the Ustashe, the SS Handschar divsion took part in the massacre in the Koritska Jama Gorge in Herzegovina during May/June 1941." However, the SS Handschar did not exist until late in 1943. Zero talk 14:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
In 1941 Bosnian Muslim volunteered into a Nazi unit after a call by their Imam who, as a historian says, knew no bounds of hatred for Jews and Serbs. -- Boksi ( talk) 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The following text is in the "Recruitment" section of this article. Unfortunately, the picture seems to have been deleted, but the caption of the picture still exists. I feel this should be removed from the article since it has an invalid picture source and does not contribute to the article in anyway, unless the picture can be reasonably explained who and where the picture came from. Adamdaley ( talk) 10:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Hanjar div Himmler Sauberzw.jpg SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler and SS Brigadefuhrer Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig during an inspection of Waffen SS Division Handschar (Handzar) aka. Scimitar, Sarajevo, 1943. This file has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.
Chetniks were Nazi collaborators. Why not include them in the article too? General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) http://www.znaci.net/00001/22.htm . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnik collaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Branko Latas organized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) http://www.znaci.net/00001/114.htm (or for individual documents, you can look bottom of theis page http://www.znaci.net/ ). For non-Serbian speaking researchers, you may use Google translate. Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 04:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
What do the chetniks have to do with this article? There is already an article on wiki about the chetniks so mentioning them is very pointless. It would be like mentioning that Jamaica is a democratic county in the U.S.A article, simply because the USA is a democracy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.165.129 ( talk) 23:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This section is overly long and there is almost nothing of note in it. This is particularly puzzling when the internationally renowned military historian, John Keegan states in 'The Waffen SS' (1970) pp. 104-105 that the 13th SS 'behaved unsatisfactorily wherever it was sent', and 'it steadfastly refused on its return to Yugoslavia to operate outside its own area, where it confined itself chiefly to massacring and pillaging the defenceless Christians.' He also states that 'In late 1944, Himmler ordered its disbandment.', which is also not properly reflected in the article. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 05:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
could someone with more skills please fix whatever is going on with the edits I did on Operation Maibaum? Thanks Peacemaker67 ( talk) 08:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
| Guild of Copy Editors | |||
|
Mostly shorter sentences and reduced duplicative context.
Comments:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wustenfuchs ( talk · contribs) 22:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
There could be few minor improvements...
- It would be better if you would replace the "Dj" with the letter "Đ", as this letter is used in Serbian language. Dj is just a replacement for the "đ" letter, as such letter doesn't exists in the English alphabet.
- Also here, can you please use the SC letters (Š and Ć)?
- It's about the tomb image... the tomb is gone now, it doesn't exist any more. Maybe you should note that ( [1] nekadašnji means former). You can see here the new monument.
- The citation at the end is missing.
- The whole paragraph is without any citation.
- Why the labour service has the quotation marks?
- You should erase the Habsburg word here, it's unnecessary.
We will continue this in the morning.
-- Wusten fuchs 23:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please, use the "ć" letter at the end of his surname.
- In Bosnian language it is "Zeleni kada", the "kadar" word isn't spelled with first capital letter.
- Please, use the "č" letter for Birač and "ć" letter for Rajići.
- Again, the same thing with the "kadar" word.
The country of this division isn't the Third Reich, but the Independent State of Croatia, while the division's allegiance is for Germany. So you need to fix this also. -- Wusten fuchs 11:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Rm pics due to Fair Use Rules Peacemaker67 ( talk) 02:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The best thing is that you remove the images that could have the copyright issues. -- Wusten fuchs 11:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- The NDH didn't consisted of several "banovina", but župas (singular: župa, plural: župe).
- Add the "š" letter in the "Ustasa" word. -- Wusten fuchs 12:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
All Done.
OK, I'll promote the article now. -- Wusten fuchs 14:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The operations sections need specific maps. Moving my comments from FA review:
-- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing {{ Location map NDH (east)}} will be used. :) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This book is used as the sole source for the word "Jewish" in "atrocities committed against Serb and Jewish civilians":
I question this for the following reasons:
In conclusion, a single word in a source devoted to a different topic is not enough. If the claim is true there will be details in specialist sources. Zero talk 03:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar and Banja Luka Ulama (Islamic clerics), who in 1941 forbade them from collaborating with the Ustaše.
This is sourced to Lepre 1997 pp.31-35. I've read it twice, and still cannot find anything warranting such a synthesis, which, given the length of the pagination cited, also looks like WP:OR. Please attend to this, and preemptive apologies if my eyes are at fault. Nishidani ( talk) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't know why the the etymology discussion got lost over time. Handschar is just the German spelling of a Balkan version of Arabic khanjar (as seen from the emblem showing a sword), so this article needs to link to khanjar... AnonMoos ( talk) 00:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The name "handschar" is the German spelling of a Balkan word for a sword or knife, ultimately from Arabic khanjar (خنجر).
This article needs a paragraph on the massacre in Bosut and Sremska Rača in mid March 1944. But, of course, it is a delicate subject, and sources are conflicting. It is mentioned in Davidson's book, and in a number of bhs books, with varying accounts on both course of events and number of victims. Zija Sulejmanpašić in his (by the way biased) book from 2000 admits that Division sources indicate that villages were on the route of combat group "J" from 27th SS Rgt. 1964 census of war losses gives 403 dead for Bosut and 480 for Sremska Rača, but these are numbers for the whole war.-- Gorran ( talk) 12:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I am proposing to change the citation style to shortened footnotes to make it easier for everyone. This is my only FA that still has the old ref tag style, and it is very clunky. Objections? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 03:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67:, this is what the source (Grujić, Periša (1959). S̆esnaesta Vojvod̆anska divizija: borbena dejstva od formiranja do oslobođenja zemlje) says on p. 175: "U borbama na Zajednicama, na Brezovači i za s. Lopare 16-ta divizija je postigla svoj dotada najveći uspeh. Neprijatelju je zadat težak udarac. Samo u toku tri dana borbi imao je oko 400 mrtvih, ranjenih i zarobljenih, a izgubio je i velike količine oružja i ratne spreme. Ukupni gubici naših jedinica iznosili su 58 mrtvih, 198 ranjenih i 29 nestalih. Od oružja smo izgubili 3 puškomitraljeza, 2 automata i 12 pušaka." I.e: 58 dead, 198 wounded, 29 missing. I can not find this data you entered here (200 dead, 557 wounded and 84 missing [2]).-- Gorran ( talk) 09:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The division is a military formation, and it was integrated into German military structure, subordinated to the 5th SS Corps, 9th SS Corps, 68th Corps, etc. It was never in any chain of command under some ISC official. I suggest to remove the claim.-- Gorran ( talk) 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
G'day @ Gorran: The Grujić 1983 citation doesn't point anywhere. Is that the right year, or is there an error between the citation and the year of the 1959 book? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Peacemaker67. This division is composed of Bosnians and Croatians but mainly Bosnians. So why did you reinstate (1st Croatian) to the name ?
Hello,
since we all know who have read the article and know what happened we also know about the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) who were seeking for their semi-independent "Region of Bosnia" why wouldn't we just add in the under the "Allegiance" part "Region of Bosnia" and the flag of the Handschar this would give a better and quicker overview to what most Bosniaks wanted and also those Bosniaks who where in the Handschar.
It would look something like this: (Example):
13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) | |
---|---|
![]() Insignia of 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)
[3] | |
Active | 1943–1945 |
Country |
![]() |
Allegiance |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Branch | Waffen-SS |
Engagements |
I didn't include the whole infobox, i just want to focus on this part. So what do you guys think about this? Remember the Handschar was made and requested to be made also for the protection of Bosniaks so why wouldn't "Bosniaks" be listed in the Allegiance part of the infobox. We know that the region never got their autonomy but this is a very special case.
All comments and opinions are welcome.
Thanks in advance. Hazbulator ( talk) 05:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Would have been a clear B class if it weren't for substantial completely unreferenced content. Which is a shame, because the referencing standard is otherwise fine, and coverage is also very good. Some copyediting is needed, though. Might easily go for GA once these problems are solved. On a side note: Villefranche-de-Rouergue Mutiny probably deserves an article of its own. GregorB ( talk) 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
Last edited at 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There have been a couple of recent edits to the infobox where the piping of Gebirgsjager to Mountain infantry has been removed, and the italics on Waffen have been removed. No edit summary has been provided. Italia2006 please explain the basis for these changes here on the talk page IAW WP:BRD. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
They were not Bosniaks as there were no Bosniak nation at the time. They expressed Croatian nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.243.120 ( talk) 09:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
"In an effort to secure the loyalty of the Bosnian Muslims, Pavelić ordered that a property in Zagreb be converted into a mosque that he named the "Poglavnik's Mosque".[5] Despite Pavelić's assurances of equality with the Croats, many Muslims quickly became dissatisfied with Croatian rule. A Muslim leader reported that not one Muslim occupied an influential post in the administration. Fierce fighting broke out between the Ustaše, Chetniks and Yugoslav Partisans in NDH territory. Some Ustaše militia units became convinced that the Muslims were communist sympathizers, and burned their villages and murdered many civilians.[6] The Chetniks accused the Muslims of taking part in the Ustaše violence against Serbs and perpetrated similar atrocities against the Muslim population. The Muslims received little protection from the Croatian Home Guard, the regular army of the NDH, whom the Germans described as "of minimal combat value"." Who wrote this? Some Serbian apologist? Muslims were members of Croatian home guard same as catholics were. Why every sentence about ustashe and Ante Pavelić has to start with killings of Serbs? Ustashe were created as resistance to Great Serbian hegemony. Chetnics did not kill Catholics and muslims as a revenge but as a plan to create ethnically clean Greater Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.243.120 ( talk) 09:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Džafer Kulenović was one of many prominent Muslims in the NDH, and also served as Vice Governor of the NDH. Džafer Kulenović See Wikipedia entry for Džafer Kulenović
That’s a start, thank you. I’m trying to be historically accurate here, I’m sure that you feel the same way. Although I don’t have a cite at the mom., for Džafer Kulenović being Vice Governor, that is like asking for a cite that George Washington was the first President of the USA. On the flip side you still maintain ‘A Muslim leader reported that not one Muslim occupied an influential post in the administration. Although this was an overstatement, Muslims were underrepresented in government positions, comprising only two of 20 ministerial positions’ without citation. Who was this Muslim leader who said this? A town dog catcher? Or maybe the ‘leader’ was a local imam? To make a sweeping statement like that, when clearly Džafer Kulenović was a prominent Muslim, exposes the statement as slander or inaccuracy at best. Muslims were an integral part of the NDH, and there was more support for the NDH, per capita, on the territory of today’s Bosnia and Hercegovina, than in any part of the NDH, uncited up to this point, I get it.
It is pretty well common knowledge that Mr. Kulenović was VP, and a Muslim. And he wasn’t the only Muslim leader by far. Furthermore, the Bleiburg memorial stone dedicated to the masssacred Croatian civilians, inscribed since 1953, there is a Muslim crescent side by side with a cross. It is reads ‘to all Croat victims’ Surely you can see that the Muslims were considered to be an integral part of the NDH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel77019 ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't yet have a mature opinion on Santasa99's edits, except on one point. The "Black Book of Bosnia" should not be used as a source for this article. The part cited is not even by the editor Mousavizadeh, here incorrectly cited as author. Actually it is from an article of Aleksa Djilas, the son of Bosnian communist activist Milovan Djilas, which has only one short paragraph on the Handschar. We shouldn't be using sources that mention the topic only in passing when we have several sources that contain in-depth studies. Zero talk 01:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Those few sentences - two, three? - you are steadfastly want to keep are product of Raphael Israeli's imagination (as well as Mousavizadeh's), the author whose cited book is mishmash of established facts and his own imagined ones, from where he draws his conclusions and establish narrative.
Meanwhile, his legitimacy is of a controversial sort, to put it mildly, and here's why: the guy takes a quite an interesting and firm stance on Islam and Muslims, and particularly on Arabs and Palestinians (which he in various ways tries to link to Bosnians and their own tragic history, to further his own shaky arguments and narrative, mainly concerning Israel), which is why his books, and in this case this book and its parts concerning Bosnia and its Muslims (e.g. after establishing Mufti's ultimate influence over Bosnian Muslim agendas and life affairs in chapter on him in Bosnia, Israeli immediately turns to elaborate on nature of Islam), are filled with characteristic claims about Islam and Muslims - after all, guy extremely strongly suggest that all Muslims are anti-Semites and potential terrorists, which he supports with his perceived nature of that religion, which he literally describes as being conceived as inherently ant-Semitic.
This is a kind of source material which you are trying to keep (at all costs?) as reference for the following sentence (taken out of his book, reformulated I believe):
“The Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar and Banja Luka Ulama (Islamic clerics), who in 1941 forbade them from collaborating with the Ustaše”
- first, "declarations" are extremely important historical issue, and there were nine of these documents (namely Sarajevo, Mostar, Banja Luka, Tuzla, Bjeljina, along with Prijedor, Bihać, Jajce and Travnik - all main Islamic parishes(?)(territorial units in Islam)) if not more important than "Unit" certainly not less, but we don't have opportunity to read about it more, instead we have article of a "Good" class on military unit most successful and most famous for extermination of, well, Nazi officers and soldiers in sleepy French village.
Well, as far as Israeli is concerned, he must be a mind-reader, and one that reads minds through space and time, at that. Besides, here's the author's prejudice-based attitude in full display:
"Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations"
- however, let's brush aside, for the moment, all of his characteristic moral and intellectual shortcomings, as I perceive them, and let's brush aside the fact that he himself can't provide reference to his readers for such horridly stereotypical, suggestive generalization (unworthy and uncharacteristic of serious and unbiased historian), and practically nothing short of Islamophobic, expression, and let's ask obvious questions: which "the Muslims", who "the Muslims", how many, why would Mufti do that, most importantly how he knows that Mufti "successfully convinced" these "the Muslims" and what makes Israeli himself so convinced, what is the result, what are the consequences, and so on, and so forth...
- maybe we are going to, somehow, connect the dots, then following this suggestive narrative of his, in the back of our minds, conclude that, after all, this perfectly fit Israeli's own proposition: must be all the Muslims are ant-Semitic, genocidal, bunch, and of course potential terrorists?
Another author, Mousavizadeh, is referenced for the next two sentence, which goes ae follows:
“The Germans emphasised that al-Husayni had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo in order to bless and inspect the division. - no, he flew in to help in failed conscription ! - During his visit to Bosnia, al-Husayni also convinced some important Muslim leaders that the formation of the division was in the interests of Islam.”
- another mind-reader, reading peoples minds across the time-space precipice, not one, ever, left any (written) clue from which such conclusion could be drawn, after all he is Muslim cleric, there is no doubt that he said such thing on numerous occasions, but we don’t know that he “convinced” any of Bosnian Muslims (to anything, anyway), not to mention that there were numerous "!important Muslims“ outside the group he met with, with existence of number of different groups of Muslims divided on political and ideological basis. This makes these two sentences redundant, if not completely inaccurate, or at least in conflict with encyclopedic norms.
My short edit is within historical parameters concerning the events at hand, as I used historian Marko Attila Hoare as my source, since he is really an expert on Bosnia's modern history, and Bosnia in WWII in particular.
Anyway, lot of text to discuss a couple of lines - losing interest - can't believe this is what it takes to make constructive contrib.--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
16:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, and on past experience, I’ll take your assertions with a grain of saltyou wrote just last of probably more than thousand snide comments you wrote against me on various article talkpages. I can not see any other reason for your behavior except to make me feel threatened or intimidated, with the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, to undermine, frighten, or discourage me from editing wikipedia. If you again write snide comments against me I might consider reporting you. Please understand this as a warning.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Since the alleged "Knight's Cross" awards to the Division's members is disputed and "cannot be verified at the German National Archive" - why is that retained on this page? It adds no value to the article and could just be nothing more than glorification propaganda from former Nazis. My recommendation is that this entire section be removed. Any objections and/or justifications otherwise? Seems like fanboy stuff to me.-- Obenritter ( talk) 18:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! I have read about the matter concerning November 1942 Memorandum referenced in the final sentence of the "Denunciations and request for protection" section. While the source offered in this article clearly supports the claim of requested annexation, Hoare claims on pp. 51-53 of the 2013 book referenced in this article that the request was limited to some form of autonomy under some form of German protection (possibly a formal protectorate). Another source - Adnan Jahić, Ideja Autonomije Bosne i Hercegovine p. 158 (reference details here) - seems to support Hoare's claims, cites a number of interpretations (including Lepre, although dismissing him) and indicates that the level of autonomy sought was similar to the one afforded by Yugoslavia to Banovina Croatia in 1939 - although under some form of German protection. Should the final sentence of the mentioned section be modified by adding something like "or grant it some sort of protection and autonomy." or should Lepre be given extra weight, or should something be done differently?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 16:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
"The East Came West", Antonio J. Muñoz, page 272 notes that it was officially disbanded in October 1944, and remnants sent into Battlegroup "Handschar" built around the 6,000 ethnic Germans left, a rather small number of Bosnians being left. Why is this omitted in the article? It was not even a Division anymore by Fall 1944! Instead it is stated as if it was simply "re-organized". Will Tyson for real ( talk) 00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "128. Velikonja 2003, p. 180." to "128. Velikonja 2003, p. 181." (page 181 discusses the annihilation of Jews) On that subject, the above reference discusses the annihilation of Jews, but doesn't indicate that these actions were directly perpetrated by the 13th Waffen Mountain Division. I think a better reference should be found to justify accusing the division of such atrocities. NadavNahari ( talk) 07:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
SS HANDZAR DELETION the entire section is false and pure communist propoganda. There was no Četnik involvement in the mentioned battle between the SS Handzar and German forces on one side, and the Communist Partisans on the other - especially not on the side of the Germans and the SS Handzar. The supposed battalion from Majevica/Romanija (do you realise how large a battalion is?) of Četniks were one of three fighting forces in the area, the SS Handzar and Germans were the second, and the Communist Partisans were the third. There was no joint attack on the Partisans by the Germans/SS Handzar and the Romanija Četniks. All three sides were fighting one another. The Četniks are being falsely represented in this article. Infact, they arent even represented through facts or references. Who were these Četniks? What was the name of the division involved? How many in their battalion? Who was their commander? Nothing is sourced, no evidence or references are given. The section states that 'Četniks' were involved. However, it doesnt state which Četniks and under whose command. Nothing. One sentence claims 'oh yeah the same Četniks that attacked the Partisans with the Germans at the last made-up battle in this article (which also has no evidence of Četnik involvement). And oh yeah btw it was an entire battalion....more than 1000 armed soldiers apparently. But of course we dont know their commanders name, nor the name of the battalion. Keep the section in the article if you like. But be honest and remove any mention of the involvement of an imaginary NAZI-allied 1000 strong battalion of Četniks in the battle. Pure communist propoganda 2405:6E00:2651:B5B4:AFA2:1BB9:2A1B:A812 ( talk) 02:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
This article reads stalinistic. The Cetniks are mentioned more than the SS Divison that the article is supposedly supposed to be about. There is no evidence of SS Handzar and Cetnik cooperation in Bosnia. Infact, such a claim defies all basic common sence and knowledge, and could only be accepted by communist ideologues for propoganda purposes. If the Cetniks are fighting the Communists all over Yugoslavia since 1941, then that doesnt mean that they are suddenly allies of the SS Handzar when the SS Unit and Communists finally start to fight eachother in 1944 (before the mass crossover of former fascists and concentration camp guards from the SS into Partisan units).
If one side is fighting the other in one area, that doesnt mean that if a third side joins the conflict and attacks one of the parties that they are now allies. Keserovic and the Cetniks of the area did not have any dealings with the Muslim fascists. Protecting the local Serb civilian population from the genocide being committed by the Muslim Ustase in Eastern Bosnia was the major reason Cetnik formations were created in the first place. Absolutely disgusting. Lenin would be proud 2405:6E00:2651:B5B4:AFA2:1BB9:2A1B:A812 ( talk) 03:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)