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 | Archive 2 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. 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) 06:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Altogether, 52 LTDF officers ended up in Salaspils, 106 cadets in Stutthof, and 983 soldiers in Oldenburg concentration camps
, this numbers are referenced to Bubnys, Arūnas (1998) Vokiečių okupuota Lietuva (1941-1944); I don't have an access to this particular book, but the numbers aren't supported by other sources, also Oldenburg camps was open in 1944, and wasn't able to accomodate such a big number of prisoners.
I check other, newer books by this author.
I'm not sure what to do with that. I would love to see the qoute from the oldest book, but it seems that author changed his mind, so should we. Marcelus ( talk) 20:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Birželio 16-osios ryte visi mokykloje likę buvo vokiečių suimti, karininkai atskirti nuo kariūnų ir kareivių. Po keleto dienų vokiečiai 106 kariūnus sunkvežimiais išvežė į Štuthofo konclagerį.[17]pages 304-305, with the second sentence being on page 305.
idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The mainstream view is that the unit suffered harsh repressions. Giving numbers for it is not at all fringe. Especially considering that the person giving them is clearly a reliable source (Arūnas Bubnys), it is a false to accuse him of being in any way fringe. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 09:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil ( talk) 08:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force → Local Force – Name used by the majority of English sources mentioned in the article:
Other:
Noteworthy, none of the sources use the name "Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force". 'Territorial Defence Force' alone appears in older literature, while more recent literature prefers 'Local Force'. Moreover, it seems that 'local' is a better translation than 'territorial', as it appears in texts written by Lithuanian authors. Marcelus ( talk) 20:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The way the article is currently written suggests that the LVR was a Lithuanian unit that accidentally came into contact with Nazi Germany. What is missing from the lede is a clear explanation that we are dealing with a collaborationist unit, formed by Germany from Lithuanian volunteers, following orders and being subordinate to Germany. The "Assessment" section shows that the opinion that there was no collaboration is isolated in the historical literature, and most scholars agree that this was a collaborating unit.
In the infobox, "Nazi Germany" must be included in the "allegiance" parameter. In turn, in the lead, there must be an unambiguous statement that it was a collaborationist unit. Marcelus ( talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
most scholars agreeon your subjective and distorted opinion. You don't really care about this unit either way, you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist' when it wasn't and you know that it was not, which is why you attempted to erase the mention of how many of its members suffered due to their disobedience to German orders. Your shameful attempts to do so can be seen just above on this very talk page with your incessant questioning of the numbers provided by one of the foremost Lithuanian experts on the matter, Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe' in this edit [6], which is absolutely shameful behaviour on your part.
you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist',
Your shameful attempts,
shameful behaviour on your part- let me remind you of WP:PERSONAL.
Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe', "fringe" isn't an accusation, but a description, of the view that is shared by a minority of scholars (please read WP:FRINGE). As you can see above I checked several other sources, and only Bubnys was giving such numbers, that's why I propsed direct attribution of this information to his name. It's pretty standard procedure.
The motivation to create the LTDF was not aiding the German occupational authorities that were predicted to be soon replaced by Soviet occupiers, but preparing an anti-Soviet resistance through the creation of a nucleus for the future Lithuanian army,
At the beginning of 1944, the Vilnius AK proposed negotiations for cooperation with the Germans. The “hatred of Bolshevism” is equally “great” among Poles and Germans. The AK, noted SS Oberführer Wilhelm Fuchs, was "the only force capable of holding down the Bolshevik-Jewish gangs." On February 7, 1944, AK Colonel Aleksander Krzyzanowski agreed on a “truce” for the Vilnius region. The Germans offered weapons, medicine and care for the wounded. The Poles wanted to support Hitler against the Soviets in the long term with 18 infantry battalions. In return, they demanded an end to German terror and the recognition of Poland's 1939 borders. As a “test of German-Polish cooperation,” the AK placed the 3rd Polish Partisan Brigade under German leadership. She received maps, German espionage information and attacked Soviet partisans on German orders.
I'd be interested in know what other sources are out there that maybe didn't get compiled in that section: I was trying to check every avaiable source to me; from the books I don't have access to but can be useful to check worth noting is David Gaunt, Paul A. Levine and Paula Pa losuo (eds.), Collaboration and Resistance During the Holocaust. Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. However, it seems to me that the current selection of sources is representative.
I am going to get really pedantic here for a minute, please bear with me for that. Bertram came up with the word "collaborationist" to describe Vichy Frenchmen who weren't merely passively failing to resist but ardently and full-throatedly embracing Aryanization and the Final Solution. We've had discussions over at the French end of this pond about whether the word "collaborationist" can properly describe anything other than a Frenchman who ardently supported the Holocaust. The conclusion was no, but I am not here to insist on that conclusion, merely to point out that as far as we could tell, no academic sources use the word any other way. It is however a convenient appellation in that the English language doesn't really have an adjective for "collaborating' or "that collaborated". So my pedantic French answer is no. It was not collaborationist because it wasn't French and because it didn't ardently support Aryanization, it sounds like, if they were "disobedient". Taking the statement as I think it was intended, was this a unit that collaborated with the Nazis? It sounds like a) they wore the uniform and b) they fought on the German side in one battle. Some editors would say that this was enough.
I probably need to know more before actually expressing anything that would be taken as a third opinion, but I might disagree. I think it is easy, all these years later to point the finger. With respect to the black market in Nazi France, which was a Nazi enrichment program at one point during the war, pretty much the entire population participated, or else they starved. But we're dealing here with military collaboration not economic. Excuse me for bring up the Chetniks, because they apparently did some really horrendous things of their own volition, which may not have been the case here. But they signed up with the Germans and called it "using the enemy" to get stores and weapons. There was in fact a pattern of Nazis co-opting nationalist and separatist groups who wanted weapons. Burma and Brittany also come to mind. Yet I would still say that individuals in such units were responsible for what they did. On the other hand, the members of at least one of the units that definitely did commit horrors were found to not be individually guilty for the crimes of the unit unless there was proof that they as individuals had personally participated. All of this is a very long way of saying that maybe it all depends.
It is true that the malgre-nous were conscripts, good point. Other possible analogies exist though. One of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark?) had volunteer units for which a respected general was recruiting; supposedly these were going to defend the homeland but they wound up on the eastern front. There was a unit of Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war who were volunteers in the sense that they didn't declare that they would rather die than put on a Nazi uniform, but they also defected to the Free French en masse once they were at the front.
The change in French historiography that I mentioned: initially the Gaullist position was that Vichy was an illegitimate government and wasn't truly "France" and therefore France was not responsible for the deportations that took place then. This was refuted some twenty years ago, although I am blanking on the author and title that is usually seen as seminal in this regard. I will find it for you if you want it, or for that matter the specifics on anything else I am saying here that interests you. Anyway, The focus turned to the Frenchmen who guarded the camp at Drancy or loaded the trains in the Marseille round-up, or most famously at Vel d'Hiv. The president of France made a formal apology for French participation in mass murders. More recently there seem to be a number of French historians interested it the moral ambiguities of the time, and the fact that by certain definitions every single French survivor of that time either joined the maquis or collaborated to at least the extent of obtaining food through the black market. Just something to think about. That's a general answer that doesn't take much account of the specifics here. I will take another look at this and try to ask a more intelligent question when I come back.
As for the infobox, its against my religion for me to touch one. Elinruby ( talk) 03:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The Germans provided weapons both to the Polish Home Army and the LTDF, with the goal of organizing more non-German troops to fight against the Soviet partisans and the invading Red Army. Unlike in Poland, there was a period of time when officials of the Home Army Vilnius district cooperated with the Nazi German occupational administration. Meanwhile, the Polish Home Army considered the soldiers of the LTDF to be German collaborators.
The further development of events showed that Lithuanians understood their interests, did not identify them with Nazi plans and refused to be blindly utilized by the German occupiers.[source is in the article]. The 🇩🇪 kept pushing 🇱🇹 to provide more for the 🇩🇪 war effort and 🇱🇹 obviously attempted to avoid it as much as possible. That is certainly not collaborationist activity.
General P. Plechavičius did not obey German pressure, did not sacrifice the Lithuanian youth who joined the LTDF under his leadership to their [German] interests, did not turn it into a tool of the Germans. Due to the constant Nazi attempts to carry out mass mobilization of Lithuanian youth under the guise of the LTDF and to send as many Lithuanians as possible to the Eastern Front, the creation and activity of the LTDF became a dramatic competition between Lithuanian and Nazi interests. This fight had no winners. The LTDF failed to become the beginning of the Lithuanian army, but the Nazis also failed to carry out mass mobilization and turn Lithuanians into cannon fodder on the Eastern Front. [12]
Elinruby is correct in saying that this discussion is because 🇱🇹 and 🇵🇱 narratives clash., since when Joachim Tauber or Justina Smalkyté are Polish scholars? I understand that it is convenient to present this as a clash between Polish and Lithuanian historiography, but this is a false juxtaposition. There is no dispute between Polish and Lithuanian historiography on this issue. If there is any dispute on the subject, it is internally Lithuanian (Smalkyté vs. Sužiedėlis).
...it is necessary to continue discussing even the most complex and painful topics, despite the fact that Lithuanian and Polish historians interpret certain events differently (for example, the attitude towards the Polish Home Army in the Vilnius region, the dependence of Vilnius and its region in 1939-1940, etc.). [14]
There is no dispute between Polish and Lithuanian historiography on this issueshows that either:
this is a false juxtapositionbetween 🇱🇹 and 🇵🇱 historiography, because there very clearly is a clash.
Emperor A worried that the advancing Purple Army might pose a bigger threat to his land than its current occupiers and tried to recruit patriots who would fight on behalf of their country. Lengthy negotiations followed with the occupiers about the unit's chain of command. Neighboring country X saw this recruiting as an existential threat, since they too already had, or were about to have, invaders from both the east and the west. Meanwhile the occupiers of A's empire completely ignored the negotiated agreement on the role of the unit, and A felt justified in declaring it void and telling his men to take to the mountains.
General P. Plechavičius did not obey German pressure, did not sacrifice the Lithuanian youth who joined the LTDF under his leadership to their [German] interests, did not turn it into a tool of the Germans. Due to the constant Nazi attempts to carry out mass mobilization of Lithuanian youth under the guise of the LTDF and to send as many Lithuanians as possible to the Eastern Front, the creation and activity of the LTDF became a dramatic competition between Lithuanian and Nazi interests. This fight had no winners. The LTDF failed to become the beginning of the Lithuanian army, but the Nazis also failed to carry out mass mobilization and turn Lithuanians into cannon fodder on the Eastern Front. [16]
The short and dramatic history of the force's soldiers - LTDF lasted for almost three months - proves that neither gen. P. Plechavičius, nor his officers were German collaborators. [17]
Do you not understand that saying "did not turn it into a tool of the Germans" means that the unit did not collaborate?; You are using incorrect reasoning, collaboration does not assume that one becomes a "tool" in the hands of another. Bubnys is absolutely right, the LTDF's cooperation with the Germans was conditional, it ended when the Germans wanted to significantly reduce the unit's autonomy. But this does not mean that we are not dealing with collaboration. After all, the creation of the LTDF was exactly the result of collaboration between Lithuanian organizations and the German authorities. The sentence you quote does not use the term collaboration at all. Many other collaborating units/organizations also "did not turn it into a tool of the Germans", which does not mean that they did not collaborate.
Blaževičius says...; Could you quote this fragment in Lithuanian? Because I can't find it there using machine translation. Could you quote this fragment in Lithuanian? Because I can't find it there using machine translation. Moreover, Kazys Blaževičius is not a historian, but an engineer, an employee of a polytechnic. I don't think his article constitutes RS.
Why do you keep ignoring whenever I mention that by your standards, the Polish Home Army are collaborators as well?; because we are discussing Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force now, and I would like to focus on it, you can start discussion about Home Army relations with Germans on proper t/p
Also, why do you ignore the role of the Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance?; same reason as above.
Hmmm, I wonder, does it have anything to do with your userpage starting with the words "Pole I am"?; what do you mean exactly? Marcelus ( talk) 22:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Collaboration clearly assumes becoming a tool in the hands of the other, otherwise even resistance could be collaboration according to your reasoning, once again deceptive hyperbole. There are many stances between resistance and being a tool in enemy's hands, collaboration is in between, resistance is certainly not a form of collaboration. Bubnys does not state that the LTDF did not collaborate, he only says that it did not become a tool in the hands of the Germans. These are two different things.
It's a possibility considering your self-declared strongly Polish national feelings, which are clearly indicated in that quote.First of all that is Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and WP:PERSONAL. Secondly, if you imply to me that I deny the fact that individual members, organisations or armed units of the Polish underground cooperated or collaborated with the Germans then you are very much mistaken. I never deny something that is a proven truth. Many members of the Polish underground were sentenced or executed for collaboration. I myself wrote a long article about Cezary Ketling-Szemley, who is believed to have committed treason and was sentenced to death for it by an AK court. In the article on Bolesław Piasecki that I am writing, I mentioned Józef Świda, who had a truce with the Germans and benefited from their help in the fight against the Soviets. He was also convicted for this. Piasecki himself was also an uninteresting character: anti-Semite, fascist, extreme nationalist, and after the war he joined the Communists. Although he fought against the Germans. Then there is the infamous ' Sword and Plough ' (Miecz i Pług), a major underground organisation that turned out to be largely controlled by German, and large part of its leadership was collaborating with Germans. It's a pity there's no article on the English Wikipedia actually, maybe I'll write one up one day. There is also National Radical Organization, which was collaborationist since the beginning. Or the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade, but you can read the article, it's pretty good. Before that, there was Tom's organisation , which actually made an alliance with the Germans and was involved in killing communists real or invented, also in the Polish underground.
@ Cukrakalnis your recent edits to this article are worrying. Twice you have removed information about an unit's allegiance to Nazi Germany. In your last edit ( [18]) you removed the German name of the unit, while in the lede you highlighted information about the repression of the unit after it was disbanded by the Germans, obscuring the circumstances of its creation. Furthermore, you removed information about the unit's battles with Polish and Soviet partisans. You have changed the very opening sentence in such a way that one can understand that the establishment of the LTDF was an act of anti-Nazi resistance. I appeal for these edits to be reversed. Marcelus ( talk) 12:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I disapprove of your edits that erase the very mention of the backing of the anti-Nazi Lithuanian resistance for this unit or the repressions against this unit by the Germans from this article- this was never my intention, and I never make any such attempt.
@ Cukrakalnis please restore Wikiproject:Poland here. This article is within the scope of interest of the wikiproject. Marcelus ( talk) 21:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I am looking for the opinions of those interested in the topic (ping @ Elinruby, @ Piotrus, @ Cukrakalnis) as to whether Kazys Blaževičius is a reliable source on topics concerning the LTDF, Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, etc.
In my opinion he is not, for the following reasons:
1. He is not a professional historian, but an engineer, dealing with history on a non-professional basis.
2. He is not impartial. He was himself a member of the LTDF, so he is directly involved in the subject he writes about. His writing on the subject therefore has WP:PRIMARY characteristics.
3. His writings include controversial and objectively untrue statements such as: Esą VR kariai skriaudę Vilnijos krašto lenkus. Šie istorikai, patikėję diversantų Armijos krajovos žygių apologetų pateiktais falsifikuotais įrodymais, išdrįso suabejoti Gen. P.Plechavičiaus kilniais tikslais, which translates as: "The LTDF soldiers allegedly committed abuses against Poles in the Vilnius region. These historians, believing the falsified evidence presented by the apologists of the subversive Home Army, dared to question Gen. P.Plechavičius' noble aims". This short extract also shows the emotional nature of his writing.
In my opinion, these facts lean towards the necessity of removing Blaževičius as a source in this article and generally approaching his texts with great distance. Marcelus ( talk) 19:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Former cadet Kazys Blaževičius wrote, which clearly attributes it to who said it and by itself provides justification for the quote's inclusion.
Even before the combat against Polish partisans, Plechavičius issued an order condemning unkind or even brutal treatment of any inhabitants of Lithuania, no matter what language they spoke, meaning that he forbade anti-Polish actions.
I'd suggest everyone involved takes a month break from those topics. I don't want to see anyone sanctioned, but tempers seem to be frying, folks. Let's avoid anything bad, ok?
. Gah.
Piotrus is right to be ambivalent. I actually came here to tell a certain editor that asking me to stop helping him is incompatible with pinging me, but
...hey! Civil discussion. In hopes of helping that happen some more, here are some comments in no particular order that are trying very hard to be civil, because yeah, semi-informed as I am about this, I am probably the closest thing available tonight to someone who truly does not give the teeniest tiniest deux fesses de rat ni trois crottes d'orteille about ANY of this, but still has some sort of an inkling what this is even about. And so here we are.
So long and thanks for all the fish, you guys. Email is enabled on my account. Peace out. Elinruby ( talk) 06:36, 25 October 2023 (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 | Archive 2 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. 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) 06:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Altogether, 52 LTDF officers ended up in Salaspils, 106 cadets in Stutthof, and 983 soldiers in Oldenburg concentration camps
, this numbers are referenced to Bubnys, Arūnas (1998) Vokiečių okupuota Lietuva (1941-1944); I don't have an access to this particular book, but the numbers aren't supported by other sources, also Oldenburg camps was open in 1944, and wasn't able to accomodate such a big number of prisoners.
I check other, newer books by this author.
I'm not sure what to do with that. I would love to see the qoute from the oldest book, but it seems that author changed his mind, so should we. Marcelus ( talk) 20:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Birželio 16-osios ryte visi mokykloje likę buvo vokiečių suimti, karininkai atskirti nuo kariūnų ir kareivių. Po keleto dienų vokiečiai 106 kariūnus sunkvežimiais išvežė į Štuthofo konclagerį.[17]pages 304-305, with the second sentence being on page 305.
idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The mainstream view is that the unit suffered harsh repressions. Giving numbers for it is not at all fringe. Especially considering that the person giving them is clearly a reliable source (Arūnas Bubnys), it is a false to accuse him of being in any way fringe. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 09:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil ( talk) 08:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force → Local Force – Name used by the majority of English sources mentioned in the article:
Other:
Noteworthy, none of the sources use the name "Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force". 'Territorial Defence Force' alone appears in older literature, while more recent literature prefers 'Local Force'. Moreover, it seems that 'local' is a better translation than 'territorial', as it appears in texts written by Lithuanian authors. Marcelus ( talk) 20:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The way the article is currently written suggests that the LVR was a Lithuanian unit that accidentally came into contact with Nazi Germany. What is missing from the lede is a clear explanation that we are dealing with a collaborationist unit, formed by Germany from Lithuanian volunteers, following orders and being subordinate to Germany. The "Assessment" section shows that the opinion that there was no collaboration is isolated in the historical literature, and most scholars agree that this was a collaborating unit.
In the infobox, "Nazi Germany" must be included in the "allegiance" parameter. In turn, in the lead, there must be an unambiguous statement that it was a collaborationist unit. Marcelus ( talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
most scholars agreeon your subjective and distorted opinion. You don't really care about this unit either way, you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist' when it wasn't and you know that it was not, which is why you attempted to erase the mention of how many of its members suffered due to their disobedience to German orders. Your shameful attempts to do so can be seen just above on this very talk page with your incessant questioning of the numbers provided by one of the foremost Lithuanian experts on the matter, Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe' in this edit [6], which is absolutely shameful behaviour on your part.
you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist',
Your shameful attempts,
shameful behaviour on your part- let me remind you of WP:PERSONAL.
Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe', "fringe" isn't an accusation, but a description, of the view that is shared by a minority of scholars (please read WP:FRINGE). As you can see above I checked several other sources, and only Bubnys was giving such numbers, that's why I propsed direct attribution of this information to his name. It's pretty standard procedure.
The motivation to create the LTDF was not aiding the German occupational authorities that were predicted to be soon replaced by Soviet occupiers, but preparing an anti-Soviet resistance through the creation of a nucleus for the future Lithuanian army,
At the beginning of 1944, the Vilnius AK proposed negotiations for cooperation with the Germans. The “hatred of Bolshevism” is equally “great” among Poles and Germans. The AK, noted SS Oberführer Wilhelm Fuchs, was "the only force capable of holding down the Bolshevik-Jewish gangs." On February 7, 1944, AK Colonel Aleksander Krzyzanowski agreed on a “truce” for the Vilnius region. The Germans offered weapons, medicine and care for the wounded. The Poles wanted to support Hitler against the Soviets in the long term with 18 infantry battalions. In return, they demanded an end to German terror and the recognition of Poland's 1939 borders. As a “test of German-Polish cooperation,” the AK placed the 3rd Polish Partisan Brigade under German leadership. She received maps, German espionage information and attacked Soviet partisans on German orders.
I'd be interested in know what other sources are out there that maybe didn't get compiled in that section: I was trying to check every avaiable source to me; from the books I don't have access to but can be useful to check worth noting is David Gaunt, Paul A. Levine and Paula Pa losuo (eds.), Collaboration and Resistance During the Holocaust. Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. However, it seems to me that the current selection of sources is representative.
I am going to get really pedantic here for a minute, please bear with me for that. Bertram came up with the word "collaborationist" to describe Vichy Frenchmen who weren't merely passively failing to resist but ardently and full-throatedly embracing Aryanization and the Final Solution. We've had discussions over at the French end of this pond about whether the word "collaborationist" can properly describe anything other than a Frenchman who ardently supported the Holocaust. The conclusion was no, but I am not here to insist on that conclusion, merely to point out that as far as we could tell, no academic sources use the word any other way. It is however a convenient appellation in that the English language doesn't really have an adjective for "collaborating' or "that collaborated". So my pedantic French answer is no. It was not collaborationist because it wasn't French and because it didn't ardently support Aryanization, it sounds like, if they were "disobedient". Taking the statement as I think it was intended, was this a unit that collaborated with the Nazis? It sounds like a) they wore the uniform and b) they fought on the German side in one battle. Some editors would say that this was enough.
I probably need to know more before actually expressing anything that would be taken as a third opinion, but I might disagree. I think it is easy, all these years later to point the finger. With respect to the black market in Nazi France, which was a Nazi enrichment program at one point during the war, pretty much the entire population participated, or else they starved. But we're dealing here with military collaboration not economic. Excuse me for bring up the Chetniks, because they apparently did some really horrendous things of their own volition, which may not have been the case here. But they signed up with the Germans and called it "using the enemy" to get stores and weapons. There was in fact a pattern of Nazis co-opting nationalist and separatist groups who wanted weapons. Burma and Brittany also come to mind. Yet I would still say that individuals in such units were responsible for what they did. On the other hand, the members of at least one of the units that definitely did commit horrors were found to not be individually guilty for the crimes of the unit unless there was proof that they as individuals had personally participated. All of this is a very long way of saying that maybe it all depends.
It is true that the malgre-nous were conscripts, good point. Other possible analogies exist though. One of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark?) had volunteer units for which a respected general was recruiting; supposedly these were going to defend the homeland but they wound up on the eastern front. There was a unit of Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war who were volunteers in the sense that they didn't declare that they would rather die than put on a Nazi uniform, but they also defected to the Free French en masse once they were at the front.
The change in French historiography that I mentioned: initially the Gaullist position was that Vichy was an illegitimate government and wasn't truly "France" and therefore France was not responsible for the deportations that took place then. This was refuted some twenty years ago, although I am blanking on the author and title that is usually seen as seminal in this regard. I will find it for you if you want it, or for that matter the specifics on anything else I am saying here that interests you. Anyway, The focus turned to the Frenchmen who guarded the camp at Drancy or loaded the trains in the Marseille round-up, or most famously at Vel d'Hiv. The president of France made a formal apology for French participation in mass murders. More recently there seem to be a number of French historians interested it the moral ambiguities of the time, and the fact that by certain definitions every single French survivor of that time either joined the maquis or collaborated to at least the extent of obtaining food through the black market. Just something to think about. That's a general answer that doesn't take much account of the specifics here. I will take another look at this and try to ask a more intelligent question when I come back.
As for the infobox, its against my religion for me to touch one. Elinruby ( talk) 03:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The Germans provided weapons both to the Polish Home Army and the LTDF, with the goal of organizing more non-German troops to fight against the Soviet partisans and the invading Red Army. Unlike in Poland, there was a period of time when officials of the Home Army Vilnius district cooperated with the Nazi German occupational administration. Meanwhile, the Polish Home Army considered the soldiers of the LTDF to be German collaborators.
The further development of events showed that Lithuanians understood their interests, did not identify them with Nazi plans and refused to be blindly utilized by the German occupiers.[source is in the article]. The 🇩🇪 kept pushing 🇱🇹 to provide more for the 🇩🇪 war effort and 🇱🇹 obviously attempted to avoid it as much as possible. That is certainly not collaborationist activity.
General P. Plechavičius did not obey German pressure, did not sacrifice the Lithuanian youth who joined the LTDF under his leadership to their [German] interests, did not turn it into a tool of the Germans. Due to the constant Nazi attempts to carry out mass mobilization of Lithuanian youth under the guise of the LTDF and to send as many Lithuanians as possible to the Eastern Front, the creation and activity of the LTDF became a dramatic competition between Lithuanian and Nazi interests. This fight had no winners. The LTDF failed to become the beginning of the Lithuanian army, but the Nazis also failed to carry out mass mobilization and turn Lithuanians into cannon fodder on the Eastern Front. [12]
Elinruby is correct in saying that this discussion is because 🇱🇹 and 🇵🇱 narratives clash., since when Joachim Tauber or Justina Smalkyté are Polish scholars? I understand that it is convenient to present this as a clash between Polish and Lithuanian historiography, but this is a false juxtaposition. There is no dispute between Polish and Lithuanian historiography on this issue. If there is any dispute on the subject, it is internally Lithuanian (Smalkyté vs. Sužiedėlis).
...it is necessary to continue discussing even the most complex and painful topics, despite the fact that Lithuanian and Polish historians interpret certain events differently (for example, the attitude towards the Polish Home Army in the Vilnius region, the dependence of Vilnius and its region in 1939-1940, etc.). [14]
There is no dispute between Polish and Lithuanian historiography on this issueshows that either:
this is a false juxtapositionbetween 🇱🇹 and 🇵🇱 historiography, because there very clearly is a clash.
Emperor A worried that the advancing Purple Army might pose a bigger threat to his land than its current occupiers and tried to recruit patriots who would fight on behalf of their country. Lengthy negotiations followed with the occupiers about the unit's chain of command. Neighboring country X saw this recruiting as an existential threat, since they too already had, or were about to have, invaders from both the east and the west. Meanwhile the occupiers of A's empire completely ignored the negotiated agreement on the role of the unit, and A felt justified in declaring it void and telling his men to take to the mountains.
General P. Plechavičius did not obey German pressure, did not sacrifice the Lithuanian youth who joined the LTDF under his leadership to their [German] interests, did not turn it into a tool of the Germans. Due to the constant Nazi attempts to carry out mass mobilization of Lithuanian youth under the guise of the LTDF and to send as many Lithuanians as possible to the Eastern Front, the creation and activity of the LTDF became a dramatic competition between Lithuanian and Nazi interests. This fight had no winners. The LTDF failed to become the beginning of the Lithuanian army, but the Nazis also failed to carry out mass mobilization and turn Lithuanians into cannon fodder on the Eastern Front. [16]
The short and dramatic history of the force's soldiers - LTDF lasted for almost three months - proves that neither gen. P. Plechavičius, nor his officers were German collaborators. [17]
Do you not understand that saying "did not turn it into a tool of the Germans" means that the unit did not collaborate?; You are using incorrect reasoning, collaboration does not assume that one becomes a "tool" in the hands of another. Bubnys is absolutely right, the LTDF's cooperation with the Germans was conditional, it ended when the Germans wanted to significantly reduce the unit's autonomy. But this does not mean that we are not dealing with collaboration. After all, the creation of the LTDF was exactly the result of collaboration between Lithuanian organizations and the German authorities. The sentence you quote does not use the term collaboration at all. Many other collaborating units/organizations also "did not turn it into a tool of the Germans", which does not mean that they did not collaborate.
Blaževičius says...; Could you quote this fragment in Lithuanian? Because I can't find it there using machine translation. Could you quote this fragment in Lithuanian? Because I can't find it there using machine translation. Moreover, Kazys Blaževičius is not a historian, but an engineer, an employee of a polytechnic. I don't think his article constitutes RS.
Why do you keep ignoring whenever I mention that by your standards, the Polish Home Army are collaborators as well?; because we are discussing Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force now, and I would like to focus on it, you can start discussion about Home Army relations with Germans on proper t/p
Also, why do you ignore the role of the Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance?; same reason as above.
Hmmm, I wonder, does it have anything to do with your userpage starting with the words "Pole I am"?; what do you mean exactly? Marcelus ( talk) 22:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Collaboration clearly assumes becoming a tool in the hands of the other, otherwise even resistance could be collaboration according to your reasoning, once again deceptive hyperbole. There are many stances between resistance and being a tool in enemy's hands, collaboration is in between, resistance is certainly not a form of collaboration. Bubnys does not state that the LTDF did not collaborate, he only says that it did not become a tool in the hands of the Germans. These are two different things.
It's a possibility considering your self-declared strongly Polish national feelings, which are clearly indicated in that quote.First of all that is Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and WP:PERSONAL. Secondly, if you imply to me that I deny the fact that individual members, organisations or armed units of the Polish underground cooperated or collaborated with the Germans then you are very much mistaken. I never deny something that is a proven truth. Many members of the Polish underground were sentenced or executed for collaboration. I myself wrote a long article about Cezary Ketling-Szemley, who is believed to have committed treason and was sentenced to death for it by an AK court. In the article on Bolesław Piasecki that I am writing, I mentioned Józef Świda, who had a truce with the Germans and benefited from their help in the fight against the Soviets. He was also convicted for this. Piasecki himself was also an uninteresting character: anti-Semite, fascist, extreme nationalist, and after the war he joined the Communists. Although he fought against the Germans. Then there is the infamous ' Sword and Plough ' (Miecz i Pług), a major underground organisation that turned out to be largely controlled by German, and large part of its leadership was collaborating with Germans. It's a pity there's no article on the English Wikipedia actually, maybe I'll write one up one day. There is also National Radical Organization, which was collaborationist since the beginning. Or the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade, but you can read the article, it's pretty good. Before that, there was Tom's organisation , which actually made an alliance with the Germans and was involved in killing communists real or invented, also in the Polish underground.
@ Cukrakalnis your recent edits to this article are worrying. Twice you have removed information about an unit's allegiance to Nazi Germany. In your last edit ( [18]) you removed the German name of the unit, while in the lede you highlighted information about the repression of the unit after it was disbanded by the Germans, obscuring the circumstances of its creation. Furthermore, you removed information about the unit's battles with Polish and Soviet partisans. You have changed the very opening sentence in such a way that one can understand that the establishment of the LTDF was an act of anti-Nazi resistance. I appeal for these edits to be reversed. Marcelus ( talk) 12:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I disapprove of your edits that erase the very mention of the backing of the anti-Nazi Lithuanian resistance for this unit or the repressions against this unit by the Germans from this article- this was never my intention, and I never make any such attempt.
@ Cukrakalnis please restore Wikiproject:Poland here. This article is within the scope of interest of the wikiproject. Marcelus ( talk) 21:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I am looking for the opinions of those interested in the topic (ping @ Elinruby, @ Piotrus, @ Cukrakalnis) as to whether Kazys Blaževičius is a reliable source on topics concerning the LTDF, Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, etc.
In my opinion he is not, for the following reasons:
1. He is not a professional historian, but an engineer, dealing with history on a non-professional basis.
2. He is not impartial. He was himself a member of the LTDF, so he is directly involved in the subject he writes about. His writing on the subject therefore has WP:PRIMARY characteristics.
3. His writings include controversial and objectively untrue statements such as: Esą VR kariai skriaudę Vilnijos krašto lenkus. Šie istorikai, patikėję diversantų Armijos krajovos žygių apologetų pateiktais falsifikuotais įrodymais, išdrįso suabejoti Gen. P.Plechavičiaus kilniais tikslais, which translates as: "The LTDF soldiers allegedly committed abuses against Poles in the Vilnius region. These historians, believing the falsified evidence presented by the apologists of the subversive Home Army, dared to question Gen. P.Plechavičius' noble aims". This short extract also shows the emotional nature of his writing.
In my opinion, these facts lean towards the necessity of removing Blaževičius as a source in this article and generally approaching his texts with great distance. Marcelus ( talk) 19:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Former cadet Kazys Blaževičius wrote, which clearly attributes it to who said it and by itself provides justification for the quote's inclusion.
Even before the combat against Polish partisans, Plechavičius issued an order condemning unkind or even brutal treatment of any inhabitants of Lithuania, no matter what language they spoke, meaning that he forbade anti-Polish actions.
I'd suggest everyone involved takes a month break from those topics. I don't want to see anyone sanctioned, but tempers seem to be frying, folks. Let's avoid anything bad, ok?
. Gah.
Piotrus is right to be ambivalent. I actually came here to tell a certain editor that asking me to stop helping him is incompatible with pinging me, but
...hey! Civil discussion. In hopes of helping that happen some more, here are some comments in no particular order that are trying very hard to be civil, because yeah, semi-informed as I am about this, I am probably the closest thing available tonight to someone who truly does not give the teeniest tiniest deux fesses de rat ni trois crottes d'orteille about ANY of this, but still has some sort of an inkling what this is even about. And so here we are.
So long and thanks for all the fish, you guys. Email is enabled on my account. Peace out. Elinruby ( talk) 06:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)