![]() | Razing of Friesoythe is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 14, 2020. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article says that there was an investigation, and also says that there wasn't.
Also, the latter is unreferenced. ( Hohum @) 13:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The official history states a page earlier "as a reprisal and a warning, a number of houses in the centre of Sogel were ordered destroyed". This is quoted in the article. As are the Laws and Customs of War (Hague IV) regarding the destruction of civilian property. To me they were both war crimes, but as there isn't a source calling Sogel one would be OR.
Not sure where to add this, sorry: the location of the town on the map is wrong. It's correct on the contemporary Friesoythe page, a few hundred km north. User:Donald unregistered user
Unsure whether this adds to the article, but the CWGC and Canadian Virtual War Memorial records for Frederick Ernest Wigle are:
The latter has a photograph of Wigle. The names of some of the others who died that day are also recorded: Privates John Brown and Cecil French. The account of what happened given in Zuehlke 2010 on page 307 should maybe be used in the article? Carcharoth ( talk) 11:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As discussed on my talk page, please see below for some suggestions on how the article could be further developed ahead of a FAC:
1) The subject of this article is categorized as a war crime, which is a very serious description. But reading the lead, there isn't any real indication of its evaluation as a war crime. The only hint the reader gets that the razing might have actually been quite a bad thing, is the statement that the Army official history glosses over it.
2) Does Stacey actually consider the event a "war crime"? In the quotation given, he only uses the noun phrase "unfortunate episode", which seems rather different. What comes before the given quotation?
3) What is the purpose of the quotation-box of Vokes in the aftermath section? Given that it's not directly related to the subject of the article, Is it supposed to be a piece of irony for the reader?
— Ruyter ( talk • edits) 07:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
This article repeatedly refers to this and similar acts as "reprisals", with links to the Reprisal article. However, from reading that article, it seems that "reprisal" has a specific meaning in international law, that these acts didn't meet:
"Enemy soldiers attacking your HQ and killing an officer" isn't a war crime, and punishing civilians for the acts of soldiers isn't a valid act of reprisal. Would it not be more accurate to refer to this as "revenge" or "retaliation"? Iapetus ( talk) 09:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems very unlikely that the Canadians wrote their SHAEF's manual, Combating the Guerrilla, in a way that advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions. This is alledgedly the claim of Briddiscombe (1998), a book that I don't have access to can't double check. The idea that the manual's statement that commanders could take "stern measures" against civilians as a rapid response to guerrilla attacks somehow translates into allowing commanders to murder civilians in response to guerrilla attacks is sensationalist to the say the least. "Stern measures" does not obviously equate to murdering, despite the fact that German units frequently took such actions against civilians on all fronts when attacked by guerrillas. Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 12:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
From [[WP:FAOWN}}:
While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner [[ Image:LinkFA-star.png|14px]]) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership.
The FAC review can be found here. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that heavily relies on consensus. This article underwent a GAN review in 2018, a A-class review in 2018 and a FA review in 2019, meaning that in the past 2 years a strong consensus has been developed for the article to exist in its present form. While this does not mean that the article can't be or shouldn't be improved by editors, it does mean that before introducing significant changes to the article, an editor should seek consensus for them in the talk page.
I think that the editor challenging the consensus should: (1) explain what makes the sources present on the article unreliable - the whole lot; (2) present new, stronger sources that support their views; (3) provide an image (entirely compliant with Wikipedia's
image use policy, of course) of the razed town, instead of demanding it; (4)
AGF about the editor(s) that spent several hours of their free time contributing to the improvement of this article. You have to actually work to reach a consensus, otherwise anyone can just start going around articles changing stuff to fit their worldview.
RetiredDuke (
talk) 22:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This section is titled "Claim by Briddiscombe that Army's SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions." Can we begin by discussing the Claim by Briddiscombe that Army's SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions? It seems very unlikely that the Canadians wrote their SHAEF's manual, Combating the Guerrilla, in a way that advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions but this is what this article currently states they did.
Do any other reliable sources state that ""stern measures" against civilians as a rapid response to guerrilla attacks... was in breach of the Hague Conventions."? I have my doubts this is what Briddiscombe actually says in his book but I have no way of accessing page 256 in his book to see what he actually says. Please include the actual quote from the text.
I've added a single source tag to this section because everything in this section is a claim by Briddiscombe with the exception of the first sentence which just provides background and doesn't address the Razing of Friesoythe. Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 04:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
While military courts were sufficient to deal with resisters who were caught, an infinitely more difficult problem involved German guerrillas, stragglers, and francs-tireurs who disappeared after launching sudden ambush attacks, presum-ably because they were hidden by the civilian population. The unfortunate answer to such situations was collective punishments, even despite the ques-tionable legality of such expedients. SHAEF had announced, during the 'Stras-bourg Incident' of November 1944, that Allied forces would act strictly in accord with 'international law,' although this they did not do. Article L of the Hague Rules of War (1907) specifically stated that 'no general penalty, pecuni-ary or otherwise, shall be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly or severally responsi-ble.' In addition, Article XXV prohibited bombardments of undefended towns, Articles XXVIII and XLVII prohibited pillage, and Article XLVI committed occupation forces to respecting civilian lives and private property. The SHAEF counter-insurgency manual, Combatting the Guerrilla, implicitly recommended contravention of these principles under certain circumstances. The handbook stressed that, while it was desirable to isolate partisans from the population, there was a proper time for 'stern measures,' including forced labour and the seizure of hostages. 'Prompt, efficient and effective counter-measures,' it advised, would be necessary to suppress partisan activity - 'Ineffective or half-hearted measures in the early stages will tend to be the greatest incentive and encouragement not only to the guerrillas, but also to all potential guerrillas and active sympathizers.' Similarly, a SHAEF Joint Intelligence Committee paper noted that it was 'important that the most drastic measures be taken whenever the Werewolves achieve a success or when any are captured.
Biddiscombe, P., Werwolf! The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, pp 255–256.
Assuming that the book is quoted correctly in the article, this is an important correction to make. "Questionable legality" does not mean illegal and on a sensitive point such as this one, it's important to get things right. b uidh e 07:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
" In Briddiscombe's book, "Werwolf!" [Specifying the source the information], he notes that [direct quote:]"even though German security services had recently proven themselves willing to act outside all set norms of civilized conduct [in their anti-guerrilla campaigns]" the SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla stated that there were circumstances where commanders could take "stern measures" against civilians (e.g. hostage taking) in response to guerrilla attacks "despite the questionable legality of such expedients" [again, a direct quote] in relation to the Hague Conventions. [1]
Nick-D, please stop preventing me and others from editing this page. You don't own this. Wikipedia is a collaborative site and looking in the edits I notice that you have been active in this page for quite some time and reverting the edits of other users when they change text that you have personally authored. Trying taking a step back and allow others to help end the page. Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 14:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
References
I can't find single reliable source that actually refers to the battle in Friesoythe and the resulting destruction of 80/90% of the town as the "Razing of Friesoythe." Did someone just decide to call this article that? What are the reliable sources for this? As I said, I can't find any sources that use this. Also I don't find any other "razing"s on Wikipedia. Not even for similar events on a much much larger scale (e.g. Destruction of Warsaw, Siege of Leningrad, Coventry Blitz, etc.). Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 14:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The book Civilians at the Sharp End: First Canadian Army Civil Affairs in Northwest Europe that was released last year might be worth consulting to see if it covers this incident or provides useful background/contextual material. Nick-D ( talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Razing of Friesoythe is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 14, 2020. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article says that there was an investigation, and also says that there wasn't.
Also, the latter is unreferenced. ( Hohum @) 13:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The official history states a page earlier "as a reprisal and a warning, a number of houses in the centre of Sogel were ordered destroyed". This is quoted in the article. As are the Laws and Customs of War (Hague IV) regarding the destruction of civilian property. To me they were both war crimes, but as there isn't a source calling Sogel one would be OR.
Not sure where to add this, sorry: the location of the town on the map is wrong. It's correct on the contemporary Friesoythe page, a few hundred km north. User:Donald unregistered user
Unsure whether this adds to the article, but the CWGC and Canadian Virtual War Memorial records for Frederick Ernest Wigle are:
The latter has a photograph of Wigle. The names of some of the others who died that day are also recorded: Privates John Brown and Cecil French. The account of what happened given in Zuehlke 2010 on page 307 should maybe be used in the article? Carcharoth ( talk) 11:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As discussed on my talk page, please see below for some suggestions on how the article could be further developed ahead of a FAC:
1) The subject of this article is categorized as a war crime, which is a very serious description. But reading the lead, there isn't any real indication of its evaluation as a war crime. The only hint the reader gets that the razing might have actually been quite a bad thing, is the statement that the Army official history glosses over it.
2) Does Stacey actually consider the event a "war crime"? In the quotation given, he only uses the noun phrase "unfortunate episode", which seems rather different. What comes before the given quotation?
3) What is the purpose of the quotation-box of Vokes in the aftermath section? Given that it's not directly related to the subject of the article, Is it supposed to be a piece of irony for the reader?
— Ruyter ( talk • edits) 07:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
This article repeatedly refers to this and similar acts as "reprisals", with links to the Reprisal article. However, from reading that article, it seems that "reprisal" has a specific meaning in international law, that these acts didn't meet:
"Enemy soldiers attacking your HQ and killing an officer" isn't a war crime, and punishing civilians for the acts of soldiers isn't a valid act of reprisal. Would it not be more accurate to refer to this as "revenge" or "retaliation"? Iapetus ( talk) 09:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems very unlikely that the Canadians wrote their SHAEF's manual, Combating the Guerrilla, in a way that advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions. This is alledgedly the claim of Briddiscombe (1998), a book that I don't have access to can't double check. The idea that the manual's statement that commanders could take "stern measures" against civilians as a rapid response to guerrilla attacks somehow translates into allowing commanders to murder civilians in response to guerrilla attacks is sensationalist to the say the least. "Stern measures" does not obviously equate to murdering, despite the fact that German units frequently took such actions against civilians on all fronts when attacked by guerrillas. Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 12:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
From [[WP:FAOWN}}:
While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner [[ Image:LinkFA-star.png|14px]]) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership.
The FAC review can be found here. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that heavily relies on consensus. This article underwent a GAN review in 2018, a A-class review in 2018 and a FA review in 2019, meaning that in the past 2 years a strong consensus has been developed for the article to exist in its present form. While this does not mean that the article can't be or shouldn't be improved by editors, it does mean that before introducing significant changes to the article, an editor should seek consensus for them in the talk page.
I think that the editor challenging the consensus should: (1) explain what makes the sources present on the article unreliable - the whole lot; (2) present new, stronger sources that support their views; (3) provide an image (entirely compliant with Wikipedia's
image use policy, of course) of the razed town, instead of demanding it; (4)
AGF about the editor(s) that spent several hours of their free time contributing to the improvement of this article. You have to actually work to reach a consensus, otherwise anyone can just start going around articles changing stuff to fit their worldview.
RetiredDuke (
talk) 22:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This section is titled "Claim by Briddiscombe that Army's SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions." Can we begin by discussing the Claim by Briddiscombe that Army's SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions? It seems very unlikely that the Canadians wrote their SHAEF's manual, Combating the Guerrilla, in a way that advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions but this is what this article currently states they did.
Do any other reliable sources state that ""stern measures" against civilians as a rapid response to guerrilla attacks... was in breach of the Hague Conventions."? I have my doubts this is what Briddiscombe actually says in his book but I have no way of accessing page 256 in his book to see what he actually says. Please include the actual quote from the text.
I've added a single source tag to this section because everything in this section is a claim by Briddiscombe with the exception of the first sentence which just provides background and doesn't address the Razing of Friesoythe. Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 04:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
While military courts were sufficient to deal with resisters who were caught, an infinitely more difficult problem involved German guerrillas, stragglers, and francs-tireurs who disappeared after launching sudden ambush attacks, presum-ably because they were hidden by the civilian population. The unfortunate answer to such situations was collective punishments, even despite the ques-tionable legality of such expedients. SHAEF had announced, during the 'Stras-bourg Incident' of November 1944, that Allied forces would act strictly in accord with 'international law,' although this they did not do. Article L of the Hague Rules of War (1907) specifically stated that 'no general penalty, pecuni-ary or otherwise, shall be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly or severally responsi-ble.' In addition, Article XXV prohibited bombardments of undefended towns, Articles XXVIII and XLVII prohibited pillage, and Article XLVI committed occupation forces to respecting civilian lives and private property. The SHAEF counter-insurgency manual, Combatting the Guerrilla, implicitly recommended contravention of these principles under certain circumstances. The handbook stressed that, while it was desirable to isolate partisans from the population, there was a proper time for 'stern measures,' including forced labour and the seizure of hostages. 'Prompt, efficient and effective counter-measures,' it advised, would be necessary to suppress partisan activity - 'Ineffective or half-hearted measures in the early stages will tend to be the greatest incentive and encouragement not only to the guerrillas, but also to all potential guerrillas and active sympathizers.' Similarly, a SHAEF Joint Intelligence Committee paper noted that it was 'important that the most drastic measures be taken whenever the Werewolves achieve a success or when any are captured.
Biddiscombe, P., Werwolf! The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, pp 255–256.
Assuming that the book is quoted correctly in the article, this is an important correction to make. "Questionable legality" does not mean illegal and on a sensitive point such as this one, it's important to get things right. b uidh e 07:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
" In Briddiscombe's book, "Werwolf!" [Specifying the source the information], he notes that [direct quote:]"even though German security services had recently proven themselves willing to act outside all set norms of civilized conduct [in their anti-guerrilla campaigns]" the SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla stated that there were circumstances where commanders could take "stern measures" against civilians (e.g. hostage taking) in response to guerrilla attacks "despite the questionable legality of such expedients" [again, a direct quote] in relation to the Hague Conventions. [1]
Nick-D, please stop preventing me and others from editing this page. You don't own this. Wikipedia is a collaborative site and looking in the edits I notice that you have been active in this page for quite some time and reverting the edits of other users when they change text that you have personally authored. Trying taking a step back and allow others to help end the page. Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 14:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
References
I can't find single reliable source that actually refers to the battle in Friesoythe and the resulting destruction of 80/90% of the town as the "Razing of Friesoythe." Did someone just decide to call this article that? What are the reliable sources for this? As I said, I can't find any sources that use this. Also I don't find any other "razing"s on Wikipedia. Not even for similar events on a much much larger scale (e.g. Destruction of Warsaw, Siege of Leningrad, Coventry Blitz, etc.). Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 14:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The book Civilians at the Sharp End: First Canadian Army Civil Affairs in Northwest Europe that was released last year might be worth consulting to see if it covers this incident or provides useful background/contextual material. Nick-D ( talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)